Using the same link, if you scroll down, they give the ‘British English’ usage – you are quoting the US usage. As we live in Britain, one should use the British usage. I hope you can understand that as you say you have difficulty in understanding things.

You may well have been proud of the filibusterers, the electorate thought otherwise. It is utter, tedious nonsense for you to keep saying that Johnson’s landslide victory was because of what you laughingly call ‘Brexit weariness’ and is an insult to the electorate that you hold in so little regard.

Some MPs throughout parliamentary history have behaved dishonestly – it is disingenuous or naïve to say otherwise, but of course you are no stranger to disingenuousness when you pretend to not understand straightforward arguments.

Just look around the world at where coalitions are the norm and you will that very few work well. We should have as much transparency in parliament that is practicable and certainly we should know how our MPs have voted.

Edited by georgenorman (28 Feb 2023 8.44am)

Whilst I appreciate you are being sarcastic you are also, I suspect deliberately, missing the point.

Any referendum we hold should only ever be consultative. Cameron making a commitment was the mistake. We certainly need to try to attract the best into the job. How to do that is for another debate. Once done it will always be our job to choose them. That's our role.

Perhaps we should have a voting show, along the lines of "British politicians have talent".
We get an evening of political broadcasts and a panel of celebrity quizzers to ask relevant questions of the candidates.
Then the phone lines open, and you can vote by phone, text or sending a postcard to the postal address.
In the next show, the winning candidates and /Government is announced by Simon Cowell.
And when they perform badly, there's another show with a General Election every 4 weeks.

Attached is the entry on the Collins website. Verb: “to obstruct (legislation) with delaying tactics”, which is exactly what I meant.

It is pure fantasy to suggest that those opposed to Brexit would vote for the only party committed to implementing it.

Which specific post or portion of the post do you find ‘incomprehensible’ or ‘incoherent’? I should be pleased to enlighten you.

It is astonishing that you don’t think our MP’s voting patterns should be available to us. Mind you, we shouldn’t be too surprised as the EU Commission and Council, whom you revere so much, bar the public from most of their activities.

I am talking about a filibuster, which is a noun, which wasn't used any more than any other kind of delaying tactics were. You are scrambling around to find one dictionary definition of a verb, when their definition of the noun is exactly as I suggest it should be. Why they define the verb that way is odd, as it makes no sense at all.

It's not fantasy at all. People vote for all kinds of reasons. Often making the least bad choice available. When Corbyn was one of those choices you can understand why some voted while holding their nose and crossing their fingers. You don't transform a 52:48 vote, after 4 years of mess and reconsideration into an 80 seat majority unless there is something seriously wrong with the opposition. There was, and it was an important factor.

I have no need for any enlightenment. I understand the words well enough. What is incomprehensible is that anyone can reach such conclusions, which are both illogical and bereft of facts. It's not worth trying to reason with such positions. It's like sowing seeds in a dessert.

The MPs voting patterns should be available to us! Collectively and not individually. I want our MP's totally free of influences and pressure until they offer themselves for re-election.