Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
What A Total Waste Of Public Money
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /news/u k-engla nd-esse x-60232 228
3 of the 4 sensible parties abstained from fielding candidates.
The fourth for obvious reasons fielded a candidate who, had wisdom prevailed, should have got in unopposed.
But 7 of the loony parties (including UKIP I see) fielded candidates, so a by-election was needed – what a total waste of public money.
The loonies should be ashamed of themselves, especially since they didn’t have any hope of being elected.
3 of the 4 sensible parties abstained from fielding candidates.
The fourth for obvious reasons fielded a candidate who, had wisdom prevailed, should have got in unopposed.
But 7 of the loony parties (including UKIP I see) fielded candidates, so a by-election was needed – what a total waste of public money.
The loonies should be ashamed of themselves, especially since they didn’t have any hope of being elected.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Gromit: "Elections are our democracy working... the other credible candidate stood down so that the Conservative candidate would win"
That is "democracy working" ?
Sadly, Amess is dead and cannot be re-elected, so the best constituent representative would hopefully be elected.
Gromit: "And terrorism loses."
Loses what? - constituents having/not having a choice to elect the best possible representative in their opinion? did "terrorism" specifically try to oust one Conservative MP ?
That is "democracy working" ?
Sadly, Amess is dead and cannot be re-elected, so the best constituent representative would hopefully be elected.
Gromit: "And terrorism loses."
Loses what? - constituents having/not having a choice to elect the best possible representative in their opinion? did "terrorism" specifically try to oust one Conservative MP ?
The people of Southend West elected a Conservative to represent them for 5 years. A terrorist murdered that representative, and forced a by election.
It would be wholly wrong for Labour or the LibDems to take advantage of that situation and fight to win the seat.
The law states that if an MP dies then there must be an election to find his/her replacement. In this instance, the opposition parties correctly decided that natural justice would be a Conservative win the seat, so they did not contest the seat. Well done to them.
It would be wholly wrong for Labour or the LibDems to take advantage of that situation and fight to win the seat.
The law states that if an MP dies then there must be an election to find his/her replacement. In this instance, the opposition parties correctly decided that natural justice would be a Conservative win the seat, so they did not contest the seat. Well done to them.
In an unbelievable twist
Take a look at the picture a third of the way down the link
Who does it look like she is being congratulated by? :
https:/ /www.bb c.co.uk /news/u k-engla nd-esse x-60254 176
Take a look at the picture a third of the way down the link
Who does it look like she is being congratulated by? :
https:/
-- answer removed --
Gromit: "The people of Southend West elected a Conservative to represent them for 5 years. A terrorist murdered that representative, and forced a by election.
It would be wholly wrong for Labour or the LibDems to take advantage of that situation and fight to win the seat. "
An General election or local election could arise at any time in various circumstances.
This 'taking advantage of a situation' is a curious mindset.
Is it not taking advantage of an electorate to be democratically unable to change their opinion ?
It would be wholly wrong for Labour or the LibDems to take advantage of that situation and fight to win the seat. "
An General election or local election could arise at any time in various circumstances.
This 'taking advantage of a situation' is a curious mindset.
Is it not taking advantage of an electorate to be democratically unable to change their opinion ?
-- answer removed --