[UK] Generic Political Counter Argument #7

Day 931, 13:18 • Published in United Kingdom France • by Hell The Great


Comrades, as the UK settles down into the glorious embrace of being ruled by Mr Woldy, it is probably time for us to begin the undemocratic baww'ing at the perceived problems we've decided now exist.

These problems depend solely upon your political party, with a perceived "party line" existing to ensure that the message gets across: because as we all know, the more something is said, the more likely it is true.

The real issue when political arguments erupt is shrouded by this party line: it is not a reaction to people bringing up problems to improve the UK: it is a reaction by the losing side in an election. I won't deny that I myself have called some undemocratic, or General Political Insult #7 from time to time, when I was on the losing side.







The facts, as they appear to me, are quite simple. A party, or candidates, success is directly based upon that party, or candidate. Whether it is their personality, record, plans, support or effort, it doesn't really matter. Even though some may argue that this is not the case, its simply not true to try and suggest otherwise. No matter how much TUP, or UKRP, can back one candidate, neither can win an election without work, or support. Whether that work comes from the candidate, or the party, and the political beliefs of a supporting party is equally irrelevant. What is relevant, is a group of people working together, for a cause they believe in, and a goal they desire.

To simplify: whilst some may argue otherwise, on the whole the best candidate will usually win an election. There are always exceptions to the rule, but its hard to dispute many recent elections where the candidate who won didn't either: a) deserve to, b) try the hardest, c) have the best plans or d) have multi-party support.








The political system in the UK is very much and ebb and flow of butthurt. When a party loses an election, it will cry blue murder until undemocratic oppression has been identified. When a party increases in number, influence or congressional candidates, its clearly full of multis, or is being undemocratic and oppressing other parties candidates. When a party has less cabinet members, its obvious that the candidate/party who won is undemocratically oppressing the best candidate in favour of people from within their party.

tl;dr - The UK isn't undemocratic, and no oppression occurs, and you can't expect to win any election without at least matching your opponents effort, support or reform proposals. By crying undemocratic oppression, all you do is reinforce the myth that such things occur, and breed the next generation of bawwing.

Oh, and TUP>UKRP bwahahahahaha. (I'm just kidding, calm down.)


jamesw
I undemocratically oppress for breakfast