Election guessing game

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 09, 2015 3:12 am

posted by spot

What you're trying to do, as far as I can see, it to go back to Tudor-style Parliaments before parties were invented, and to just have people gather to formulate national policy who have been sent from the Shires to represent their class. That technique of governance, if you remember, led to civil war.

No don't see where you are copming from with that one it doesn't make any sense at all. We have PR in scotland and it works not least because more people now vote as their votes do actrually make a difference. Turnout was very high compared to england. Besides if people want to vote jedi why not? An mp from the raving monster loony party would have been great fun.

It really is a simple question of whether the country wants to let the lunatic fringe into Parliament or to keep it sensible :yh_rotfl:yh_rotfl

You may not have noticed who is in power this morning. The last thirty years have done this country a great deal of damage because we have right wing governments run by professional politicians that don't give a **** about the electorate just so long as they vote the way they are supposed to. They've just had the fright of their lives in scotland (the apparatchiks that is) and if cameron fails to keep his vow (and I'm not holding my breath) the demand for a referendum will come from the people of scotland and this time any sentiment for the union will not get in the way.

Every time the tories or labour banged on about the snp threat their support went up - maybe what cameron wanted but he may have done irrevocable harm to the union. The anti-scottish rhetioric and mysoginistic rants about nicola sturgeon have not gone down very well at all. We're use to a more reasoned debate in scotland. Jim murphy shouting down the other leaders does not make him look strong it looks like he has no case to put

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:12 am

In Western Europe, 21 of 28 countries use proportional representation, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

So what's so special about us ?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 09, 2015 6:00 am

Bruv;1478880 wrote: I think I agree, but unless the major parties have to give a concession in a coalition situation, there will never be PR.

But how can we both think PR is the answer when the SNP has just wiped out everything else in sight ? If there is a party that can capture the imagination of the electorate it will succeed whatever system is used.

I wonder if anybody here is clever enough to work out how this election's results wold look like under PR ?

Yes, I think it will require a coalition to bring in PR, as "first past the post" is terribly helpful to the major parties. The SNP are very popular in Scotland, and would have won many seats under any system, and rightfully so. As for capturing the imagination.....yes and no......the tories are in with a majority, but the can't claim to have captured the imagination with only 30% (ish) of the vote. If looked at under the "light" of PR, they're not even a legitimate government, with less than 1/3 of the electorate's vote...

And a big thank you to Spot, for putting up that very informative PR list! Definitely a "go-to" man if you want some hard facts and figures....

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 6:46 am

Smaug;1478918 wrote: And a big thank you to Spot, for putting up that very informative PR list! Definitely a "go-to" man if you want some hard facts and figures....

Yes he's alright..........sometimes.

And what about who requested someone to work it out ?

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat May 09, 2015 6:49 am

I have to ask.

So the Tories have a general majority of slightly over the middle, but surely they have to cooperate with the minority to some degree to get things passed. do they not?

And I thought that the way we do things over here was a bit goofy.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 09, 2015 7:20 am

But there was a referendum as to whether to change the system to PR or not & the vote went in favour to keep the First Past The Post system. Much as I would prefer a more proportionate system I am prepared to abide by the majority decision. If we don't accept the verdict of a referendum are we any better than those who don't accept the result of the Scottish Independance Referendum?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 09, 2015 7:42 am

LarsMac;1478923 wrote: I have to ask.

So the Tories have a general majority of slightly over the middle, but surely they have to cooperate with the minority to some degree to get things passed. do they not?

And I thought that the way we do things over here was a bit goofy.

Laws get passed if a simple majority of parliament votes for it. If one party has a majority of members they can pass laws whether the rest object or not and there's nothing they can do to stop them unless enough MP's(of the governing party) refuse to support their party. There are ways party leaders can imposse discipline (I won't bore you with three line whips etc) but ultimately it's up to each MP to decide it's not unknown for mp's to tell the prime minister to shove it.

Whip (politics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A "hung" parliament is one where there is no overall majority for one party and they have to get the support of smaller parties - that's why we had a coalition for the lasrt five years. The libdems have just paid the price for pissing off their core supporters who didn't vote for them to go in with the tories.

posted by smaug

Yes, I think it will require a coalition to bring in PR, as "first past the post" is terribly helpful to the major parties. The SNP are very popular in Scotland, and would have won many seats under any system, and rightfully so. As for capturing the imagination.....yes and no......the tories are in with a majority, but the can't claim to have captured the imagination with onl 30% (ish) of the vote. If looked at under the "light" of PR, they're not even a legitimate government, with less than 1/3 of the electorate's vote...

.the tories are in with a majority, but the can't claim to have captured the imagination with onl 30% (ish) of the vote. If looked at under the "light" of PR, they're not even a legitimate government, with less than 1/3 of the electorate's vote...

But they do and I actually agree with you we are not governed by the people we want.

Clegg had the opportunity and wasted it - he should have made pr a condition of any coalition not just a referendum on it, the tories needed him so did labour if he'd walked away people would have thought more of him. For that alone I would condemn him and all those who went along with it.

Bear in mind with PR it's harder for any one party to get an overall majority the snp were first in a minority government then won an overall majority in the scottish parliament. The irony of the leaders debate is that nicola sturgeon is the one that had the most experience of actually being in government. Ruth davidson (leaader of the scottish tories) is pretty good as well - to be the female, lesbian leader of the tories in glasgow takes some strength of character. Jim murphy was completekly outclassed and doesn't know it.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 9:54 am

FourPart;1478912 wrote: I think the system in Northern Ireland, as I understand it (which may not be the case) has a lot to be said for it. Once the votes are in, the parties who have the fewest votes can opt to transfer their votes to someone else. It's like if there's 3 candidates - Conservative, Labour & Independant Labour, if Coservative wins, and the Independant candidate comes 3rd, then he can decide to allocate his votes to the official party candidate, thus wiping out the Coservative candidate, as the policies are pretty much the same anyway. Basically, this is similar to PR, but it still remains as the electorate voting in the same way.

As I said, my understanding of the system could be wrong, but I still think it would have a lot going for it.

I'm quite certain it's extremely untrue, too, if it's for the national election. Maybe they do that for Stormont?

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 10:06 am

gmc;1478914 wrote: posted by spot

We have PR in scotland and it works not least because more people now vote as their votes do actrually make a difference. Turnout was very high compared to england.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Elect ... Region.pdf

I think not. What have I misunderstood? The turnout figure this week across the entire UK was 66.1% if I remember right.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat May 09, 2015 10:32 am

spot;1478867 wrote: I'm trying to figure out the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Over here I would consider them to be one party, I think.

You would be right. The Dems exist to keep the lid on insurgency.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 09, 2015 11:30 am

spot;1478933 wrote: I'm quite certain it's extremely untrue, too, if it's for the national election. Maybe they do that for Stormont?

Single transferable vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I knew I remembered hearing something about it being a different system there, with transferable votes, only I thought it was the candidate who transferred his / her votes.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 11:32 am

FourPart;1478936 wrote: Single transferable vote - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I knew I remembered hearing something about it being a different system there, with transferable votes, only I thought it was the candidate who transferred his / her votes.

Just so - the article says it's used in Northern Ireland for "National assembly elections, European elections and Local government elections" but not for Parliamentary elections.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 11:37 am

spot;1478854 wrote: So, the Labour Party needs a new leader.

David Lammy, MP

MP for Tottenham for the last 15 years, startlingly intelligent and charismatic, well up to bringing in a Labour administration in 2020. I've been impressed every time I've heard him speak.

Ooh - David Lammy considers Labour leadership bid - BBC News

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 11:41 am

spot;1478883 wrote: This is Party Lists apportioned by National votes.

Party: Actual: PR National apportionment

Conservative: 330: 240

Labour: 239: 198

UKIP: 1: 82

Liberal Democrat: 8: 51

Scottish Nationalist: 56: 31

Green: 1: 24

DUP: 8: 4

Plaid Cymru: 3: 4

Sinn Fein: 4: 4

UUP: 2: 2

SDLP: 3: 2

Others: 1: 7

How gratifying - the BBC gets pretty close to the same tally...

Election 2015: What difference would proportional representation have made? - BBC News

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 09, 2015 11:59 am

spot;1478937 wrote: Just so - the article says it's used in Northern Ireland for "National assembly elections, European elections and Local government elections" but not for Parliamentary elections.
I did say that I wasn't certain about if I was right about it, but at least I was partly right.

How gratifying - the BBC gets pretty close to the same tally...

Election 2015: What difference would proportional representation have made? - BBC News
That was a very interesting article. Also fascinating how the actual votes cast differ so massively. It looks like if it wasn't for the Regional Ward system that we have, we'd now have a Labour Government, with quite a strong majority. This is what I was saying about the polls before the election itself - whether they were based on individual votes, or by regions / wards / seats. I was also surprised to see the overwhelming number of votes UKIP candidates got in comparison to the others. Of course, the problem is that they're all focused in certain areas.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 1:30 pm

spot;1478934 wrote: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Elect ... Region.pdf

I think not. What have I misunderstood? The turnout figure this week across the entire UK was 66.1% if I remember right.

Turnout was particularly high in Scotland at 71.1%

Which says to me that the electorate have been invigorated by the use of PR ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 1:32 pm

When did we have a referendum about PR ? Did I miss it ?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 09, 2015 1:39 pm

Bruv;1478922 wrote: Yes he's alright..........sometimes.

And what about who requested someone to work it out ?

And thank you too!

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 09, 2015 1:44 pm

spot;1478940 wrote: How gratifying - the BBC gets pretty close to the same tally...

Election 2015: What difference would proportional representation have made? - BBC News

Did you actually work those figures out yourself? Come on Spot, come clean! You hit me with some interesting theoretical physics a couple of weeks ago... are you a mathematician as well?

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 09, 2015 2:44 pm

Bruv;1478952 wrote: When did we have a referendum about PR ? Did I miss it ?

2011, do try and pay attention:sneaky:.

Results of the United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

posted by bruv

Which says to me that the electorate have been invigorated by the use of PR ?

It was after the election when the snp got an overall majority people sort of put their heads up and went haud on here a minute. Our councils were dominated by a kind of labour mafia that rather took for granted that labour would always get in. The referendum debate politicised the whole nation and the sight of labour sharing the platform with the tories was the last straw you've jsut seen the result. Most scots would have gone for "devomax" it was cameron that refused to allow that as a third option in the referendum question. If he doesn't deliver the next referendum is likely to be overwhelmingly yes.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 2:57 pm

My apologies, I had forgotten about that.

There is no help for the UK electorate is there ?

Smaug · Post by **Smaug** » Sat May 09, 2015 3:43 pm

Bruv;1478962 wrote: My apologies, I had forgotten about that.

There is no help for the UK electorate is there ?

No, and not much hope for our poor country, either. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum...

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:04 pm

Bruv;1478951 wrote:

Turnout was particularly high in Scotland at 71.1%

Which says to me that the electorate have been invigorated by the use of PR ?

The 71.1% Scottish turnout in the 2015 national election was under first-past-the-post. The claim by gmc was that We have PR in scotland and it works not least because more people now vote as their votes do actrually make a difference. Turnout was very high compared to england.

The file from the Scottish Assembly, if you download it, is the turnout figures for all PR voting for the Scottish Assembly since it was founded. None of the PR voting for the Assembly is as high as the Scottish voting rates under first-past-the-post in national elections. The claim that under PR "more people now vote as their votes do actually make a difference" is false, surely.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:14 pm

Bruv;1478952 wrote: When did we have a referendum about PR ? Did I miss it ?

Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote - BBC News

I was there in 2011, I voted against PR. The referendum on PR was the Liberal price for entering into coalition government in 2010. I'm amazed that people have forgotten it happened.

I don't mind PR so long as no votes spill out of a constituency to support candidates elsewhere, either in other constituencies on from regional Party Lists. All PR does, in that case of Single Transferable Vote within a constuency, is to turn the election from Whom Do You Want As MP into Whom Do You Least Want As MP. The dialogue of the ballot paper is "I'd prefer her, but otherwise give my vote to her or her or her or her but whatever you do, don't let HER have it".

eta: I remember voting in the United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum of 1975, too. It asked "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" and ended up Yes 17,378,581, No 8,470,073. Mine was a Yes. It will be next time too, if they insist on asking a second time.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:15 pm

Whether it was PR or not that sparked the increased turnout is debatable I suppose, but what else could it be,given the evidence.

Please don't call me Shirley in public.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:17 pm

Smaug;1478954 wrote: Did you actually work those figures out yourself? Come on Spot, come clean! You hit me with some interesting theoretical physics a couple of weeks ago... are you a mathematician as well?

Maths can be complicated, much of it goes over my head. What I did was sums, they tend to be easy. Probabilities tend to be sums too, I can often do that as well.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:21 pm

Bruv;1478973 wrote: what else could it be,given the evidence.

What else could be responsible for the 71.1% turnout this week in Scotland? The capacity of the Scots to get fired-up patriotic when faced with the power of England, I'd have thought. They haven't been this fired up since before the Clearances.

Scots, wha hae wi' Wallace bled,

Scots, wham Bruce has aften led;

Welcome to your gory bed,

Or to victory!

Now's the day, and now's the hour;

See the front o' battle lour;

See approach proud Edward's power—

Chains and slavery!

Wha will be a traitor knave?

Wha can fill a coward's grave!

Wha sae base as be a slave?

Let him turn and flee!

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:27 pm

spot;1478975 wrote: What else could be responsible for the 71.1% turnout this week in Scotland? The capacity of the Scots to get fired-up patriotic when faced with the power of England, I'd have thought. They haven't been this fired up since before the Clearances.

Not the clearances, 84% turnout for the Yes/No referendum

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:31 pm

Bruv;1478976 wrote: Not the clearances, 84% turnout for the Yes/No referendum I'm grateful to them for voting No. England and Wales would be permanently governed by capitalist thuggery without the last remaining Socialist outpost in the British Empire sending a net 57 non-Conservative members to Westminster.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:39 pm

spot;1478977 wrote: I'm grateful to them for voting No. England and Wales would be permanently governed by capitalist thuggery without the last remaining Socialist outpost in the British Empire sending 59 non-Conservative members to Westminster.

But what happens when their aim is fulfilled, no more socialist Scot PM's or MP's for little ole England ?

Post by **spot** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:50 pm

Bruv;1478979 wrote: But what happens when their aim is fulfilled, no more socialist Scot PM's or MP's for little ole England ?

You saw that coloured-in map of the country at Election 2015 - BBC News

As far as England and Wales is concerned, the small red patches denote high density urban living. The blue swathes are the towns and villages.

I think we'd have to depopulate the countryside to get any social justice. The Americans did that in South Vietnam with Agent Orange and a lot of napalm, so we know it's possible. Or maybe we can just talk the rural voters into repopulating the inner cities in exchange for local post offices, better public transport and lots of foxes.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat May 09, 2015 4:53 pm

spot;1478970 wrote: The 71.1% Scottish turnout in the 2015 national election was under first-past-the-post. The claim by gmc was that We have PR in scotland and it works not least because more people now vote as their votes do actrually make a difference. Turnout was very high compared to england.

The file from the Scottish Assembly, if you download it, is the turnout figures for all PR voting for the Scottish Assembly since it was founded. None of the PR voting for the Assembly is as high as the Scottish voting rates under first-past-the-post in national elections. The claim that under PR "more people now vote as their votes do actually make a difference" is false, surely.

You're everthinking it. People are starting to take more interest in voting as they realise at least in terms of the elections for the scottish parliament it does actually make a difference more people now take the time to vote. the day after the no vote cameron went back on his vow the election just past turnout is the result of a politicised electorate that wanted to make a point if laboure had held on to their seats it would have gone nback to business as usual, People lose interest in voting when they feel it makes no difference. if cameron does not take this seriously a pissed off scottish electorate may just well push for independence. Forget alex salmond he's not in charge no matter how much the daily mail can't get their heads round the concept of a female political leader and think she is just there to look pretty. I don't know how labour will recover from this in scotland if thyey do it will be because the snp slip up.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 10, 2015 1:52 am

The first American assessment of our recent national election has appeared on my desktop...But beside the fact that the election's outcome seemed to come as a complete surprise to the electorate, there were other aspects of this election that baffled an American.

For one thing, telling the candidates apart. To American eyes and ears David Cameron, Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and even Nigel Farage had the same accents, same suits, same gestures - four British Mitt Romneys. We too had a Mitt Romney, but we could tell him apart from Barack Obama.

Of course, I could tell the difference between the men and Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola bore a strong resemblance - not least in the demands she intended to make on Ed Miliband - to my ex-wife's divorce lawyer.

Also, what was with the SNP formerly being headed by a person called Salmond and now by a person called Sturgeon? Something fishy, an American suspects.

A Point of View: A baffled American's take on the UK election - BBC News

Thank you Patrick Jake "P. J." O'Rourke, the H. L. Mencken Research Fellow at the Cato Institute(a). I'll keep my eye on you.

(a) The Cato Institute's mission is "To originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace". The first Scotsman in recorded history had something to say about peace imposed by death, as I recall: "They make a desert, and call it peace", the "they" in this quote being the Roman Empire. The Americans employ equivalent peace-imposing techniques. Whenever I hear an American use the word Peace, or Freedom for that matter, I reach for my sick-bag.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun May 10, 2015 2:06 am

Without a doubt the most impressive figure to emerge from the Labour shadows over the last few years is Chuka Ummana . Smart, intelligent, a good speaker and bags of style and personlality. I hope his hat is thrown and indeed caught in the fight for Labour leader.

eta. Sorry Chuka Ummuna. My apologies to him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuka_Umunna

Post by **spot** » Sun May 10, 2015 2:29 am

Snowfire;1478990 wrote: Smart, intelligent, a good speaker and bags of style and personlality.

Why on earth did the party not impose the leadership on him last year and abolish the embarrassment they actually ran with. As far as I can see, Ed Miliband single-handedly threw that election to the dogs. I have never seen anyone so consistently cringeworthy since Charlie Drake retired.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun May 10, 2015 2:49 am

spot;1478993 wrote: Why on earth did the party not impose the leadership on him last year and abolish the embarrassment they actually ran with. As far as I can see, Ed Miliband single-handedly threw that election to the dogs. I have never seen anyone so consistently cringeworthy since Charlie Drake retired.

It seems to me to be a consistency with the Labour party, Blair being one of the few in recent years with charm and personality, despite the monumental catastrophe he turned out to be. Another Labour embarrasment sat next to Chuka on The Andrew Marr show this morning. Mandelson. I never forgave that smarmy git for his railroading all of Mo Mowlems achievements as Northern Ireland Secretary. The arrogant bastard strutted around the gaffe as if the work was all his.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 10, 2015 2:58 am

Snowfire;1478994 wrote: Another Labour embarrasment sat next to Chuka on The Andrew Marr show this morning. Mandelson. I never forgave that smarmy git for his railroading all of Mo Mowlems achievements as Northern Ireland Secretary. The arrogant bastard strutted around the gaffe as if the work was all his.

I would rather, in a parallel universe, have had the Prince of Darkness himself campaigning to be the next Labour Prime Minister than what actually happened. Or, had he not been willing and available, even Peter Mandelson. You're quite right that Lord Mandelson has the moral integrity of a serial killer and a seriously warped view of his place in history but he's more pitiable than infuriating. Poor Peter Mandelson. Bloody Ed Miliband.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 10, 2015 3:09 am

It strikes me that Robert Burns deliberately wrote Scots Wha Hae with the intent that no Englishman could sully his verse by reciting it. It can only ever be red aloud by a Scotsman.

By oppression's woes and pains!

By your sons in servile chains!

We will drain our dearest veins,

But they shall be free!

Lay the proud usurpers low!

Tyrants fall in every foe!

Liberty's in every blow!—

Let us do or die!

Do you see what he did? An Englishman can't rhyme Free and Dye, but a true Scot will always come out with Free and Dee.

Cunning chap, Burns. What he would have made of the French Translation I don't know.

I'm surprised he wasn't arrested by the English. He published it the year after the French Revolution and as a plain direct call to Independence by insurrection it's serious stuff. It's a better national anthem than Flower of Scotland.

That's Maya Angelou in the audience, listening to Dick Gaughan sing.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun May 10, 2015 4:50 am

Dick gaughan is bloody awful I would pay not to go and see him, since when did not being able to sing make you a "proper" folk singer.

Another song by burns about the 1707 union

We were sold out by our own banking establisment after, guess what a bankiog crisis brought on by the selling of dubious investments. Scottish history is a long depressing story of how we were shafted by our own ruling establishment -the clearances were carried out by scots one of them even sold his tenants in to slavery, scottish absentee landlords with the occasional high profile englishman like the uke of sutherland. . Most scots know that tghe rise of the snp has got very little to do with anti-english sentiment. The poor have no lawyers and they still don't as we are about to find out when it comes to issues like fracking the confiscation of housing association properties etc etc.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun May 10, 2015 2:18 pm

Cheeky bugger

Worth a try though.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 15, 2015 2:59 am

The BBC says Chuka Umunna has withdrawn his offer to lead the party, saying (as best I can make out) that he hates reporters. Who could blame him.

Chuka Umunna withdraws Labour leader bid - BBC News

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 15, 2015 5:15 am

Doesn't like the pressure of the campaign for leader, would never have made a decent PM then.

Post by **spot** » Fri May 15, 2015 11:23 am

Bruv;1479234 wrote: Doesn't like the pressure of the campaign for leader, would never have made a decent PM then.

The only problem is, as best I understand the position, that one is prohibited by law from taking a brickbat to tabloid newshounds. Why that should be so I have no idea, it sounds like entirely justifiable self-defence to me.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri May 15, 2015 3:29 pm

spot;1479244 wrote: The only problem is, as best I understand the position, that one is prohibited by law from taking a brickbat to tabloid newshounds. Why that should be so I have no idea, it sounds like entirely justifiable self-defence to me.

One would think anyone putting themselves forward for political power should, at the very least, know how it works.

FourPart · Post by **FourPart** » Sat May 16, 2015 12:02 am

Bruv;1479252 wrote: One would think anyone putting themselves forward for political power should, at the very least, know how it works.
Perhaps he does know how it works & knows of some skeleton lurking in his closet, waiting to come out if he were to get anywhere - because it most certainly would.

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat May 16, 2015 1:02 am

FourPart;1479274 wrote: Perhaps he does know how it works & knows of some skeleton lurking in his closet, waiting to come out if he were to get anywhere - because it most certainly would.

I hope thats not the case he seems to be the standout amongst a very average bunch

Post by **spot** » Sat May 16, 2015 2:34 am

FourPart;1479274 wrote: Perhaps he does know how it works & knows of some skeleton lurking in his closet, waiting to come out if he were to get anywhere - because it most certainly would.You have no reason at all to think he has, though, nor to assume that's the underlying cause. Other suggestions point out that he has tabloid filthmongers lurking outside his granny's house after dark. She's 102. I would be upset to hear there was a representative of the Independent among them.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat May 16, 2015 3:59 am

I wonder what his Granny has been up to ?

As it happens I respect his decision NOT to stand for the reasons given, but suspect his judgment for entering in the first place.