The difference is that supporters of a party are denied a choice because their own party chooses not to field a candidate but expects you to meekly vote for another party who may or may not have policies you agree with.

I guess I am railing at the arrogance of politicians who expect the electorate to vote as directed being herded into the polling booth like sheep. It's probably my contrary nature but I would be tempted to say to my party stuff you if you can't be bothered to field a candidate I will vote for the party you don't want to teach you a lesson.

One more point

I do agree and with W12's chart too, however, I'd like to add this chart which, I believe really explains Brexit as well as the rise of left/right populism in Europe.

This chart follows the global distribution of wealth until 2008, and I can with a high % probability, say that the far right of that chart has gone up even more in the last 10 years.

The issue is that once you let capitalism out of the box to find the best returns, i.e. globalisation, you lift the poorest people out of poverty and maximise the top 1% returns, so trickle down economics is right, just not nationally, as in and around the 70% mark on the horizontal axis, is the poorest person the the UK, USA.

So, if you're a unionised worker in the 70s, basically being able to command any fee you want, the Tories come in and privatise everything and kill all the unions, then someone has to be blamed and it can't be the Tories taking responsibility for it, it has to be uncontrolled immigration.

I will say again, that any group having absolute power is not a way to run society, whether it's unions or billionaires and neither am I calling anyone racist here, it's just the way it is. One group blames immigration and the other blames the rich, but it was those groups in the first place that caused this.

Attachment: winners-and-losers-jpeg.jpg (131.33Kb)

While I value a level of inter-dependence between nations I have obviously plenty of issues with the wider affects of globalisation.

That made plain, I don't argue your criticisms of capitalism.....While I view meritocracy as at the core of what's essential the cronyism and lop sided nature that results has always been valid as a criticism.

We can look at the wages of Premier footballers as a manifestation of this....A premiership footballer isn't millions of pounds better than a championship footballer yet the market says it is.....they are obviously better in most cases but we had these same differences in player quality in the seventies... and yet now the financial differential has become disfigured.

I also look upon the rise in power both fiscal and political of corporations as a big negative and something that must be battled.

Every system is flawed and the corrupt and unethical will always strive to drain the life blood from any system.

Edited by Stirlingsays (08 Nov 2019 10.31pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Westminster Voting Intention: CON: 40% (=) LAB: 30% (+1) LDM: 15% (+1) BXP: 8% (-1) GRN: 3% (=) Via @Panelbase , 6-8 Nov. Changes w/ 30-31 Oct.

Moodys are having a moody over the UKs election spending promises:-

The UK's credit rating could be downgraded, according to ratings agency Moody's, which says Brexit has caused "paralysis in policy-making".

It has changed the outlook on the UK's current rating - which is a marker of how likely it is to pay back its debts - from "stable" to "negative".

Moody's also criticised the general election promises to raise spending with "no clear plan" to finance it.

Unless there are clear details to come in their manifestos the combination of brexit and reckless spending does not look promising at all.

This the same agency that aaa rated the sub prime morgage derivatives, which caused the financial crisis?