Who have no allegiance to any party and vote for who they think is the best candidate not who a particular says they have to vote for
No, I disagree - particularly at General Elections.
I would say it is a minority who vote for what the candidate is like as an individual (how many voters know what all of their candidates are like?) - even floating voters tend to opt for a party.
No, I disagree - particularly at General Elections.
I would say it is a minority who vote for what the candidate is like as an individual (how many voters know what all of their candidates are like?) - even floating voters tend to opt for a party.
I would say its more likely that they vote against a party , regular posters on here have said they vote for whoever stands the best chance of keeping one of the main parties from gaining the seat
I would say its more likely that they vote against a party , regular posters on here have said they vote for whoever stands the best chance of keeping one of the main parties from gaining the seat
So they vote on party lines and not for individuals?
Its not because of allegiance to a party its because they hate one of the parties and will vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping them out so how can it be on party lines ?its against them
Its not because of allegiance to a party its because they hate one of the parties and will vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping them out so how can it be on party lines ?its against them
Of course it is on party lines! They are voting for the candidate of the party that is most likely to keep their "enemy" out!
How can you construe that to be voting primarily for an individual?
Of course it is on party lines! They are voting for the candidate of the party that is most likely to keep their "enemy" out!
How can you construe that to be voting primarily for an individual?
Lets be honest about this David Cameron could end world hunger , end war and have everybody living in palaces without the need to work and you still wouldn't vote for him
< \Lets be honest about this David Cameron could end world hunger , end war and have everybody living in palaces without the need to work and you still wouldn't vote for him >
As opposed to causing as much hunger in Britain as he can, lusting to fight a war and only stopped by Parliament, and chucking old ladies out of their homes, lived in for many years, once their husband has died and the children have left home?
Fascinating that you think that not working is a good thing, I like work.
Did you read the brilliant reply from the Tory on here who countered the fact that 19 Tory ministers and MPs had sat in the same classroom at Eton, by saying that Ed Miliband went to Oxford and the London School for Economics so he is a hypocrite?
Of course we can't all have brains, but that is pure mush.
Lets be honest about this David Cameron could end world hunger , end war and have everybody living in palaces without the need to work and you still wouldn't vote for him
I take it from this completely irrelevant response that you concede the point.
I take it from this completely irrelevant response that you concede the point.
I concede that you hate the political system of this country and like many others would rather see it run along the lines of so many banana republics that have have adopted unworkable Marxist and socialist ideals that do nothing for the underprivileged but enable the ruling elite to live a lifestyle that the majority would never be able to achieve
< \Lets be honest about this David Cameron could end world hunger , end war and have everybody living in palaces without the need to work and you still wouldn't vote for him >
As opposed to causing as much hunger in Britain as he can, lusting to fight a war and only stopped by Parliament, and chucking old ladies out of their homes, lived in for many years, once their husband has died and the children have left home?
Fascinating that you think that not working is a good thing, I like work.
Did you read the brilliant reply from the Tory on here who countered the fact that 19 Tory ministers and MPs had sat in the same classroom at Eton, by saying that Ed Miliband went to Oxford and the London School for Economics so he is a hypocrite?
Of course we can't all have brains, but that is pure mush.
You have proved my point , no matter what Cameron may achieve you have a hatred of him that would never allow you to vote for him , yet you fail to understand that many people also have a hatred for what Labour have done to this country and the debt that they always leave us with
No matter who is power some will benefit some will suffer
3, Well, we know that 54% of Tory MPs went to private schools. That's the issue we're discussing.
But you don't know whether that figure is disproportionate when compared to the number of Tory party members who actually put themselves up to be selected as a candidate, do you?
Not quite the same thing, is it? That's asking about a selection method that Labour have openly admitted they use. This is about a selection method that you and the shill who started this thread like to think the Tories use but don't actually have any evidence to back up.
I'll ask again - what percentage of the people who put themselves forward as Tory party candidates were privately educated?
I concede that you hate the political system of this country and like many others would rather see it run along the lines of so many banana republics that have have adopted unworkable Marxist and socialist ideals that do nothing for the underprivileged but enable the ruling elite to live a lifestyle that the majority would never be able to achieve
The only person making an issue of it is you - as I said, it was just an offhand remark.
Unlike you, I went to a comprehensive so kindly spare me the lectures on how they're supposed to work, thanks.
But you don't know whether that figure is disproportionate when compared to the number of Tory party members who actually put themselves up to be selected as a candidate, do you?
Not quite the same thing, is it? That's asking about a selection method that Labour have openly admitted they use. This is about a selection method that you and the shill who started this thread like to think the Tories use but don't actually have any evidence to back up.
I'll ask again - what percentage of the people who put themselves forward as Tory party candidates were privately educated?
How would I know when it is not info (as far as I am aware) the Tories have put out?
The point is in Tory guidance notes for selection they make a great play that they want to see people from all walks of life and backgrounds to be chosen for selection - yet the majority of those elected have a private education background against a national figure of 7% for the population as a whole.
Ergo it can only be assumed that the local selection committees have a predilection for those from such backgrounds.
If you don't care why, then fair enough - but I want to know why they do have this obvious bias.
How would I know when it is not info (as far as I am aware) the Tories have put out?
The point is in Tory guidance notes for selection they make a great play that they want to see people from all walks of life and backgrounds to be chosen for selection - yet the majority of those elected have a private education background against a national figure of 7% for the population as a whole.
Ergo it can only be assumed that the local selection committees have a predilection for those from such backgrounds.
If you don't care why, then fair enough - but I want to know why they do have this obvious bias.
No it can't!
You've admitted you don't know what percentage of the people who stand in front of the selection committees have been privately educated, you only know that 57% of those who get through the process have. Therefore it is impossible to say whether that 57% shows bias either for or against such individuals, or whether it's representative.
However, I sense that you're not about to start letting facts and logic intrude on your point-scoring, are you?
You've admitted you don't know what percentage of the people who stand in front of the selection committees have been privately educated, you only know that 57% of those who get through the process have. Therefore it is impossible to say whether that 57% shows bias either for or against such individuals, or whether it's representative.
However, I sense that you're not about to start letting facts and logic intrude on your point-scoring, are you?
What point scoring?
I want to know from the Tories why, in spite of them saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to their selection process the majority of the favoured candidates for those eventually elected (54%) still seems to come from the 7% of the population privately educated.
It's a simple question for them to answer, and I would like to know. If they indeed select for interview a majority from these backgrounds then they are incorrect in saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to represent their party , aren't they?
But you have said you don't care so why are you interested?
I want to know from the Tories why, in spite of them saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to their selection process the majority of the favoured candidates for those eventually elected (54%) still seems to come from the 7% of the population privately educated.
It's a simple question for them to answer, and I would like to know. If they indeed select for interview a majority from these backgrounds then they are incorrect in saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to represent their party , aren't they?
But you have said you don't care so why are you interested?
It really is simple and there is no great mystery or conspiracy. It is just that like people attract their like and are more likely. There is another aspect and it is known as the Lake Wobegon Strategy. Put simply people will generally support those of a similar background to themselves and as such if someone comes from a private school background, they are more likely to support those from a private school background.
I want to know from the Tories why, in spite of them saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to their selection process the majority of the favoured candidates for those eventually elected (54%) still seems to come from the 7% of the population privately educated.
It's a simple question for them to answer, and I would like to know. If they indeed select for interview a majority from these backgrounds then they are incorrect in saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to represent their party , aren't they?
But you have said you don't care so why are you interested?
For the last time, they aren't coming from the entire population of the UK, they're coming from the relatively small susbset of the population that are members of the Tory party.
The Tories might say they want candidates from all backgrounds, but they can only select from what's put in front of them and if the people who put themselves forwards for selection don't come from all backgrounds, then there's not a lot they can do about it, is there? Do you expect them to hang around the local offy and press gang a chav into standing for them when he pops in for a bottle of white cider and a packet of Bensons?
For the last time, they aren't coming from the entire population of the UK, they're coming from the relatively small susbset of the population that are members of the Tory party.
The Tories might say they want candidates from all backgrounds, but they can only select from what's put in front of them and if the people who put themselves forwards for selection don't come from all backgrounds, then there's not a lot they can do about it, is there? Do you expect them to hang around the local offy and press gang a chav into standing for them when he pops in for a bottle of white cider and a packet of Bensons?
Are you saying that it is predominantly privately educated people that are members of the Tory Party?
Are you saying that it is predominantly privately educated people that are members of the Tory Party?
No, because like you I don't know what the actual figures are and to do so would mean I'd be commenting from a position of ignorance. However, unlike you, I am actually aware of that.
Regardless, you're still missing the point that they don't select from the party membership at large and are reliant on those who actually put themselves forward for selection. That is the tiny minority of people you are talking about.
No, because like you I don't know what the actual figures are and to do so would mean I'd be commenting from a position of ignorance. However, unlike you, I am actually aware of that.
Regardless, you're still missing the point that they don't select from the party membership at large and are reliant on those who actually put themselves forward for selection. That is the tiny minority of people you are talking about.
The majority of whom you are presumably assuming come from private schools.
Again, I would still like to know why you are arguing at such length on a subject you "don't care" about!
Again, I would still like to know why you are arguing at such length on a subject you "don't care" about!
I don't care about the Tory Party's selection process, what I care about are your and the OP's accusations of a bias that neither one of you has backed up with a single shred of (non-circumstantial) evidence.
I wonder if Britain (ignoring the aberation of ****** Bush) is the only democracy where who your father was/is or the school or university you went to is the most significant factor in getting yourself into parliament or doing rather well at say the BBC?
Only 7% of the population of the UK went to a fee paying school
But :
54% of Tory MPs went to a fee paying school
41% of LibDems do
12% of Labour do
34% of all MPs do
24% of all MPs went to Oxbridge
20 MPS 19 Tory 1 LibDem went to Eton
Which explains why the UK is skewed towards the south east and London and why for the rest of the UK things will never improve.
Many Scots want out of this lop-sided unequal society and who could blame them?
It's shocking isn't it?! What's worse, is that some have been so conditioned they think it shouldn't even be questioned.
Comments
I said the majority of regular voters, not all.
And there are always a large number of people who don't regularly vote who can be tempted out to the polling booths on occasion.
Who have no allegiance to any party and vote for who they think is the best candidate not who a particular says they have to vote for
No, I disagree - particularly at General Elections.
I would say it is a minority who vote for what the candidate is like as an individual (how many voters know what all of their candidates are like?) - even floating voters tend to opt for a party.
I would say its more likely that they vote against a party , regular posters on here have said they vote for whoever stands the best chance of keeping one of the main parties from gaining the seat
So they vote on party lines and not for individuals?
Damn - beat me to it!
Its not because of allegiance to a party its because they hate one of the parties and will vote for whoever has the best chance of keeping them out so how can it be on party lines ?its against them
Of course it is on party lines! They are voting for the candidate of the party that is most likely to keep their "enemy" out!
How can you construe that to be voting primarily for an individual?
Lets be honest about this David Cameron could end world hunger , end war and have everybody living in palaces without the need to work and you still wouldn't vote for him
As opposed to causing as much hunger in Britain as he can, lusting to fight a war and only stopped by Parliament, and chucking old ladies out of their homes, lived in for many years, once their husband has died and the children have left home?
Fascinating that you think that not working is a good thing, I like work.
Did you read the brilliant reply from the Tory on here who countered the fact that 19 Tory ministers and MPs had sat in the same classroom at Eton, by saying that Ed Miliband went to Oxford and the London School for Economics so he is a hypocrite?
Of course we can't all have brains, but that is pure mush.
I take it from this completely irrelevant response that you concede the point.
I concede that you hate the political system of this country and like many others would rather see it run along the lines of so many banana republics that have have adopted unworkable Marxist and socialist ideals that do nothing for the underprivileged but enable the ruling elite to live a lifestyle that the majority would never be able to achieve
You have proved my point , no matter what Cameron may achieve you have a hatred of him that would never allow you to vote for him , yet you fail to understand that many people also have a hatred for what Labour have done to this country and the debt that they always leave us with
No matter who is power some will benefit some will suffer
Unlike you, I went to a comprehensive so kindly spare me the lectures on how they're supposed to work, thanks.
But you don't know whether that figure is disproportionate when compared to the number of Tory party members who actually put themselves up to be selected as a candidate, do you?
Not quite the same thing, is it? That's asking about a selection method that Labour have openly admitted they use. This is about a selection method that you and the shill who started this thread like to think the Tories use but don't actually have any evidence to back up.
I'll ask again - what percentage of the people who put themselves forward as Tory party candidates were privately educated?
Like I said.........
How would I know when it is not info (as far as I am aware) the Tories have put out?
The point is in Tory guidance notes for selection they make a great play that they want to see people from all walks of life and backgrounds to be chosen for selection - yet the majority of those elected have a private education background against a national figure of 7% for the population as a whole.
Ergo it can only be assumed that the local selection committees have a predilection for those from such backgrounds.
If you don't care why, then fair enough - but I want to know why they do have this obvious bias.
You've admitted you don't know what percentage of the people who stand in front of the selection committees have been privately educated, you only know that 57% of those who get through the process have. Therefore it is impossible to say whether that 57% shows bias either for or against such individuals, or whether it's representative.
However, I sense that you're not about to start letting facts and logic intrude on your point-scoring, are you?
What point scoring?
I want to know from the Tories why, in spite of them saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to their selection process the majority of the favoured candidates for those eventually elected (54%) still seems to come from the 7% of the population privately educated.
It's a simple question for them to answer, and I would like to know. If they indeed select for interview a majority from these backgrounds then they are incorrect in saying they want to attract people from all backgrounds to represent their party , aren't they?
But you have said you don't care so why are you interested?
It really is simple and there is no great mystery or conspiracy. It is just that like people attract their like and are more likely. There is another aspect and it is known as the Lake Wobegon Strategy. Put simply people will generally support those of a similar background to themselves and as such if someone comes from a private school background, they are more likely to support those from a private school background.
The Tories might say they want candidates from all backgrounds, but they can only select from what's put in front of them and if the people who put themselves forwards for selection don't come from all backgrounds, then there's not a lot they can do about it, is there? Do you expect them to hang around the local offy and press gang a chav into standing for them when he pops in for a bottle of white cider and a packet of Bensons?
Are you saying that it is predominantly privately educated people that are members of the Tory Party?
Regardless, you're still missing the point that they don't select from the party membership at large and are reliant on those who actually put themselves forward for selection. That is the tiny minority of people you are talking about.
The majority of whom you are presumably assuming come from private schools.
Again, I would still like to know why you are arguing at such length on a subject you "don't care" about!
I don't care about the Tory Party's selection process, what I care about are your and the OP's accusations of a bias that neither one of you has backed up with a single shred of (non-circumstantial) evidence.
It's shocking isn't it?! What's worse, is that some have been so conditioned they think it shouldn't even be questioned.