I am anti AV because it could get an opposite outcome to what all of the people want to get in a country as people could just vote their second choices out of spite, because I know a few, say 2 or 5 people, who voted for Lib Dems but I also know that hate the government we have now but because of conservatives not they're policies, they may object to them but that is only as it was by the conservatives if the Lib Dems or the labour party had the identical policies they would still vote for the lib Dems/Lab Rats as a second choice, so then it would just increase the amount of people that select their MP’s on a purely tactical basis.
Plus it would make the chances of a hung parliament a common occurrence.
But out of the countries that have taken up the AV system, yes all three of them how many of them actually like the AV, Australia, which is about it.
Were you born here? I ask that not in the spirit of xenophobia, but to establish whether or not there is an explanation for your appalling syntax that may leave your idealogical credibility in tact.
ReplyDeletePedantry being a mere hobby of mine, I reserve ascerbic comments such as this for those whose message is actually being obscured and undermined by their very rendering of it - to whit: your cause may be 'right' but you're making it sound wrong :S
My apologies for being a little confrontational about it,
Nath.
Yes I was born here, in England, and you don’t ask that in the spirit of, you being scared of our differences? I wouldn’t hold it against you if you did; just you only ask that for an explanation of my appalling use of the English language well the truth is that I maybe English but I have lost my voice, properly not a little bit hoarse I am properly mute. But now my “idealogical credibility” by idealogical were you on about my “ideological credibility”, because if it was I am sorry but I don’t quite make the grade to fit into your personal ideological world.
ReplyDeleteMere or not Nath, as I am guessing that is what you would like to be dubbed, your use of “ascerbic” I’m guessing that that means acerbic or sharp, and I accept your critique and I endeavour to improve upon it. Now I haven’t got a clue what you meant by “wrong” because it can mean so many things thanks to that accursed thing of duality of language.
Now this is what you call flamed? no I think constructively complained about.
None necessary
Savage.1