|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 21, 2024 10:48:50 GMT
It does not need to be one person, it could be a group and as long as absolute power has a defined area of exercising then that is a dictatorship. Total power means actually having it and able to exercise it with no consequences. Legally a dictatorship may exist but in actuality that absolute power cannot be exercised without serious risk to the 'dictator' that would end his dictatorship so really it is not absolute power at all. Yes it does if you we are using the the normal definitions of those words. Dictatorship: a country governed by a dictator. Dictator: a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force. Ruler: a person exercising government or dominion. There is of course the Totalitarian State, but even that would require the abolition and prohibition of "opposition parties". We still have opposition parties, so we are not a Totalitarian State either. The claim that we are a dictatorship is demonstrably false if we are using the standard definition of the word Dictatorship. If we are free to use any meaning we want for any word at all then we may as well call it a Utopia. All The Best It can be a group and the definition is quite clear in that respect. Dictatorship, form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations. www.britannica.com/topic/dictatorship |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 10:49:09 GMT
So that's your first point out of the window. And now we're into the realms of autistic dogmatism that allows only one (your) definition: You see a dictatorship being the exercise of power by an individual.I see it as either that or the exercise of power by a government that has neither popular support nor effective opposition. Exactly as we have now. No I don't see it as that. The English Language does. All The Best LOL! Like I said, autistic dogmatism. That something does not meet a dictionary definition doesn't mean that it can't effectively function the same way. Most reasonable people recognise this. Dogmatists and those with cognitive difficulties may not. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 10:50:15 GMT
Yes it does because they didn't vote for them!🤣 No, it just means they chose not to EXPRESS that support at the Ballot, on election day. I note in that post that you did not express condemnation of paedophiles. Should we now assume you support paedophiles? Al The Best This isn't a vote on paedophiles. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 21, 2024 11:53:24 GMT
It's a statistic, but I really don't see the relevance? You claim that it's a measure of measuring support, I'm not sure it is, which is why I'm asking how. OK - if you dont want to use votes as a measure of support what do you want to use? Don't be obtuse. I neither said nor implied that we should not count votes. You totally made that up and i expect better from you. I've made it quite clear that I favour PR. It's yourself that is claiming that deposits lost is a measure of popularity. I've said i dont think it is and asked how so and you haven't been able to explain. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 21, 2024 12:03:36 GMT
Elsewhere, we'd call that a dictatorship. No you wouldn't. A Dictatorship would not have had elections in the first place. A Dictatorship would only have one "politician" total. All The Best Is a junta not effectively a dictatorship ? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 21, 2024 12:10:21 GMT
So that's your first point out of the window. And now we're into the realms of autistic dogmatism that allows only one (your) definition: You see a dictatorship being the exercise of power by an individual.I see it as either that or the exercise of power by a government that has neither popular support nor effective opposition. Exactly as we have now. No I don't see it as that. The English Language does. All The Best You've learned that from Stevek !  Wiki (yes I know) in the English language disagrees with Steve's dictionary definition A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship#:~:text=A%20dictatorship%20is%20an%20autocratic,with%20few%20to%20no%20limitations. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 21, 2024 12:17:20 GMT
No, it just means they chose not to EXPRESS that support at the Ballot, on election day. I note in that post that you did not express condemnation of paedophiles. Should we now assume you support paedophiles? Al The Best This isn't a vote on paedophiles. Irrelevant. You did not express condemnation of paedophiles, ergo by your reasoning you support paedophiles. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 13:13:30 GMT
No I don't see it as that. The English Language does. All The Best You've learned that from Stevek ! Wiki (yes I know) in the English language disagrees with Steve's dictionary definition A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government which is characterized by a leader, or a group of leaders, who hold governmental powers with few to no limitations. Politics in a dictatorship are controlled by a dictator, and they are facilitated through an inner circle of elites that includes advisers, generals, and other high-ranking officials
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship#:~:text=A%20dictatorship%20is%20an%20autocratic,with%20few%20to%20no%20limitations.Indeed. But Nulla can't grasp that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 13:14:15 GMT
This isn't a vote on paedophiles. Irrelevant. You did not express condemnation of paedophiles, ergo by your reasoning you support paedophiles. All The Best Nope, I didn't vote Labour. |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Jul 21, 2024 13:15:26 GMT
Pacifico
Seems a good deal like football. You can lose half your matches and still do a lot better than another team who go through the entire season unbeaten because they've drawn most of their games. The big rewards are for wins.
Our voting system only rewards winners. Prizes for those who come top and defeat all their opponents in each of the constituencies, but no political consolation prize for those regularly holding on to their deposit and dress that up as some sort of success. We play 650 separate matches on Election day. Some day we might play one single big game and try to decipher a result from that, but until we do, lost deposits are neither here nor there, and incur nothing more than a financial slap on the wrist, rather than having any political implication.
|
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jul 21, 2024 13:19:38 GMT
If Tories get this wrong Reform might grow and become the main opposition to Labour and then the Tories just a smaller pro-business party.
The threat to the Tories is huge.
Reform could become a party that takes the white working class vote and Middle England vote that lose confidence with the others. On the latter group just like Farage did not want HS2.......
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 21, 2024 13:31:10 GMT
If Tories get this wrong Reform might grow and become the main opposition to Labour and then the Tories just a smaller pro-business party. The threat to the Tories is huge. Reform could become a party that takes the white working class vote and Middle England vote that lose confidence with the others. On the latter group just like Farage did not want HS2....... Let's hope so. The establishment parties have had their day. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 21, 2024 15:33:15 GMT
OK - if you dont want to use votes as a measure of support what do you want to use? Don't be obtuse. I neither said nor implied that we should not count votes. You totally made that up and i expect better from you. I've made it quite clear that I favour PR. It's yourself that is claiming that deposits lost is a measure of popularity. I've said i dont think it is and asked how so and you haven't been able to explain. Lost deposits are obviously a measure of the amount of votes - if you dont get 5% of the total electorate you lose your deposit. Not sure why you are having trouble with this. The difference in lost deposits between the LibDems and Reform simply illustrated the lower number of votes that the LibDem's received compared to Reform. |
|
|
|
Post by witchfinder on Jul 21, 2024 15:47:18 GMT
"The establishment parties have had their day" - According to The Squeezed Middle
With Labour winning 411 seats, the Conservaives 121 seats, the Lib Dems 72 seats ( over 90% of seats ), and with Reform UK on 5 seats, it doesn't look like the establishment parties have had their day to me.
At least half of traditional Tory voters would not contemplate voting Reform UK, and all Red Wall seats are back in Labour hands, which indicates that for many voters in traditional working class areas, Brexit mattered, but the small boats problem is not as bigger issue to them.
I suggest that this is the pinacle of Reform UK's success, the height of their popularity
It was back in 2009 when the BNP astonishingly won 2 European seats, where are they now. ?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 21, 2024 16:03:02 GMT
"The establishment parties have had their day" - According to The Squeezed Middle With Labour winning 411 seats, the Conservaives 121 seats, the Lib Dems 72 seats ( over 90% of seats ), and with Reform UK on 5 seats, it doesn't look like the establishment parties have had their day to me. At least half of traditional Tory voters would not contemplate voting Reform UK, and all Red Wall seats are back in Labour hands, which indicates that for many voters in traditional working class areas, Brexit mattered, but the small boats problem is not as bigger issue to them. I suggest that this is the pinacle of Reform UK's success, the height of their popularity It was back in 2009 when the BNP astonishingly won 2 European seats, where are they now. ? We have to remember the BNP were destroyed by deliberate and selective action by the establishment backed in total by the establishment parties who selected some form of moral superiority as the platform upon which to destroy the BNP. In that respect teh BNP were easy meat with plenty of skeletons and old quotes. It is less easy with Reform to find those skeletons, and they have been looking hard, and it is suspected that a bit of creative 'undercover work' was a throw of the dice. The Nationwide support for Reform is the tell tale sign that something is at work different from both the BNP and UKIP. That could be because we are further down the line of British destruction and social media is a much more savvy thing for the exchange of views than the 'establishment' would like. |
|
