srfc
Ancient Mariner
As opposed to what the native speaker said?
UK Politics
- Thread starter CriedWhenBrucieLeft
- Start date
As opposed to what the native speaker said?
In this case, yes, because it's what every grammar and style guide also says.
What’s the Difference between Less and Fewer?
Why is it so easy to confuse less and fewer? Perhaps because they both represent the opposite of…
www.grammarly.com
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
www.lexico.com
LESS vs FEWER: How to Use Fewer vs Less in English? - Confused Words
Less vs Fewer!!! What's the difference between Fewer vs Less? Learn the difference between less vs fewer and how to use them correctly with examples and ESL
confusedwords.org
I make plenty of mistakes in my native language as well, and I would always tell you to rather listen to a teacher of the language than myself.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
Ariana is a professional English teacher, and I am a professional English translator and interpreter. Academic qualification obtained by actually studying the language surely counts for something?
Less and few debacle is one of descriptive grammar and prescriptive grammar. That is, the usage we've explained is the one preferred academically and one mentioned in grammar guides (prescriptive). The one you've used is frequently used (descriptive), but considered a mistake.
Dr. Eddies Wingman
Brighter than thousand_suns
Didn't they agree on a deal several weeks ago? A deal that was pretty much Boris Johnson's leverage going into this election - "vote for us and get this thing done" wouldn't carry much credibility hadn't they had a deal negotiated already.
Not that Boris Johnson and credibility go well together in the first place ... but in this case, the voters concluded the opposition had even less credibility. Which says a lot about the rubbish job Corbyn has done.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
Boris Johnson already has a deal agreed with the EU.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
From the outside, this did not seem like a normal election. Certainly there were other issues besides Brexit, but that seemed to be the main issue. Johnson campaigned on a way to break the stalemate and Labor seemed to campaign on "we will rewind and replay the last 12 or so months, then have another vote that might put us right back where we are now" My guess would be that even people that voted remain were tired of being in limbo and just want it over (one way or another) and voted that way.
The result is Johnson can claim a clear mandate to take Brexit to the finish line now.
The result is Johnson can claim a clear mandate to take Brexit to the finish line now.
I think people are just exhausted. Brexit has dominated political discussion in the UK for a long, long time, since Cameron announced they'd have a referendum. Boris's simple plan (he can scarcely know no others) was "get the UK out of the EU *now*". And people have been beaten into this, browbeaten by years and years of divisive politics. Those people probably aren't thinking of the other outcomes.
Austerity and depression doesn't seem real to a lot of people. It's just a fact. They don't get it, because it hasn't impacted them. Or worse - they want to blame the EU for economic tragedy in their past. Maybe they're kinda pro-EU but really don't care because dad lost his job at the auto factory in 1977, and that's kinda impacted the family throughout, and fuckit, just be done.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
I agree with the exhausted part .. but you fail to mention the majority voted to leave and there were certainly frustrations as well with the pace of leaving. I don't follow UK politics (beyond Brexit) all that closely, but Labor really offered no alternative to the key issue of the election. Their campaign seemed to be we will kinda work on leaving and see what happens.
The thing about elections is that it often comes down to who has the best messaging and runs the most effective campaign. People were essentially given the choice between what they were promised four years ago in the first referendum (a quick Brexit) and a repeat of the last four years of endless negotiating and deals. The latter is something nobody wanted, not the people who supported leave and not the people who supported remain. Why run on that? While it is a decision I disagree with, I can see why people went with the Tories.
If liberals want to start winning elections they need to stop playing to the left of center and start promoting bold ideas that their bases actually want. The conservatives already do this and it gives them a huge advantage in election season, even though their policies often tend to be less popular. Labour should have campaigned on an end to the last four years of nonsense by holding an immediate referendum to cancel Brexit.
I don't necessarily think people should be punished for the outcome of an election, but there are consequences to elections. Unfortunately those consequences disproportionally affect those who are not as well off, but in a democratic system you get what the majority votes for. You can certainly blame Tory voters for this, but at the end of the day what does that achieve? Every time a political party loses an election, they look at what they did wrong and how to prevent it in the future because those are the things they have control over. These are all winnable elections, but but these left wing parties aren't running winnable campaigns.
Anyway, Boris is looking at one of the strongest majorities the Tories have won in years. With that comes a huge mandate. He would be foolish not to use it.
If liberals want to start winning elections they need to stop playing to the left of center and start promoting bold ideas that their bases actually want. The conservatives already do this and it gives them a huge advantage in election season, even though their policies often tend to be less popular. Labour should have campaigned on an end to the last four years of nonsense by holding an immediate referendum to cancel Brexit.
I don't necessarily think people should be punished for the outcome of an election, but there are consequences to elections. Unfortunately those consequences disproportionally affect those who are not as well off, but in a democratic system you get what the majority votes for. You can certainly blame Tory voters for this, but at the end of the day what does that achieve? Every time a political party loses an election, they look at what they did wrong and how to prevent it in the future because those are the things they have control over. These are all winnable elections, but but these left wing parties aren't running winnable campaigns.
Anyway, Boris is looking at one of the strongest majorities the Tories have won in years. With that comes a huge mandate. He would be foolish not to use it.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Could not agree more .. not sure how slamming/berating/calling voters bad names who do not vote how you would like does anything but make them not ever want to listen to a word you say. They have it totally backwards, it is up to the party to make themselves relevant to voters and increasing amounts of "purity tests" makes that very unlikely to happen
londongeorge
Noblity
The most important thing is BJ is going to get Brexit done. That's the honest manifesto Boris stood on and I believe he will deliver in this respect.
There can be no doubt that Boris will deliver Brexit.
GhostofCain
Ancient Mariner
@Magnus mentioned in another thread Chinese Democracy as an example of an oxymoron. Honest Boris Johnson is another one.
That being said, it might be the first and only time he makes a promise he then keeps... What most people do not realise is that Brexit is just setting the terms for the divorce (i.e. only the beginning) and that trade agreement discussions with the EU would take ages. You would never read that on the Daily Mail though.
Last edited:
Get 'er done was the slogan, I think. Hasn't really said what the rest of his policies are other than throw some coppers at the NHS and throw some coppers at some coppers who his party previously took the funding away from.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
When it takes nearly 900,000 votes to elect one party’s MP, and just 26,000 for another, you know something is deeply wrong. ....
Westminster’s voting system is bankrupt. It’s time for proportional representation (link)
Millions of voters unrepresented. An unjust majority on a minority of the vote. And nearly one in three forced to vote ‘tactically’.
Westminster’s voting system is not just bust. It’s bankrupt, decrepit, discredited.
We’ve been crunching the numbers and found some stark results. For example. we analysed the number of votes needed per MP elected.
When it takes nearly 900,000 votes to elect one party’s MP, and just 26,000 for another, you know something is deeply wrong.
Overall, 45.3% of votes went unrepresented – i.e. the people in each area who did not vote for the winning MP.
Across the country, it meant millions of votes for parties went to waste – with some parties’ support much more spread out than others.
Under proportional systems like the Single Transferable Vote, these unrepresented votes would be redistributed to voters’ other choices instead. But under one-person-takes-all voting, those voters are effectively silenced.
The Conservatives have won a majority on a minority of the vote, with an increase in seat share high above their increase in vote share. ...
I don't think they're going to change from first past the post anytime soon. They had the referendum on alternative vote during the Cameron-Clegg years and that went extremely poorly. Decisively so.
Regretfully, the population of Westminster-style nations seems to be resistant to moving to a modern form of government.
Regretfully, the population of Westminster-style nations seems to be resistant to moving to a modern form of government.
The Flash
Dennis Wilcock did 9/11
The AV referendum of 2011 was one of the most disgusting cases of party politics, and one of the most disappointing cases of people failing themselves via democratic vote in recent memory. The public had no idea what they were voting on and were convinced to keep the status quo by the beneficiaries of the status quo.
).