Your 6 most disliked UK politicians active today

so if russell brand votes for labour, he "likes" labour?



voting for somebody doesn't mean people like them - if you were in a constituency and the only people running were stalin and hitler and you voted for stalin (and he wins), does that mean you like stalin? you didn't want the choices to be so limited but that was outside of your control, just like the situation of ed miliband's constituents having no say over who represented the labour party in their area (it's a parachute seat). the institutional arrangements stop the legitimacy being full. in this case, the institutions might make the whole thing a total farce de facto



he got parachuted into his seat. his very-labour constituents would have voted in tony blair if he stood there. sometimes it's not about the politician. it's about their party. they are all paid to say the same things and they are paid to vote for the same policies in their manifestos. the person behind the manifesto in a constituency basically means nothing. my MP is michael tomlinson of the conservative party - do you really think I, if I voted for the conservatives, would have wanted him in particular over all the other possible candidates? I don't care if he won or not - he as a person is meaningless - it's his party that is the real significance. they could put a deaf-dumb-and-blind guy up for the conservative party's position in the constituency - as long as he has his brail and knows what the party heads are telling him to vote for, he'll vote for it and there will be nothing a constituent or a constituency could do about it.



again, you *know* this is shallow reasoning - "they may not like him" but they had no choice but to vote for him and this is the only thing that you're measuring, aside from the fact that he was the reason his labour lost so badly! therefore, like I said, he should have stood down as an MP because nobody even respects him any more, and they only voted for him because of his party, tactically (I bet) because in this country, basically any vote that means anything is a tactical vote - e.g. UKIP getting something like 13% and getting 0.01% of seats.

I know what you are trying to say - because Miliband was in a safe seat, he would have been voted in anyway. I'm afraid, however, that this fact does not destroy the legitimacy of his win in his constituency. To be able to fairly use the word 'audacity' in relation to his staying on as an MP, you need to have some evidence that he didn't win his seat fairly. This debate is not one centred on his leadership, as he - quite rightly- relinquished that position on 8th May. The debate is about the seat he won - and he won it fairly. The trouble with your argument - that his being an MP is illegitimate because a Labour tortoise would have won - is that it extends to all safe seats in the Commons. About 340 seats in the House are safe seats, meaning that whoever stands for the dominant party will most likely win. Surely your argument means that all of these MPs' jobs are illegitimate, because they won it as the representative of their party, not as themselves? If voters don't like the person, they don't have to vote for the party, but voters must remember that - unless their MP is very rebellious - the representatives of each party will toe the party line.

Can't you see the fatal flaw in your argument? Miliband was elected in his consitutency. We may not know how many voted for him explicitly or rather his party (as with all 340 safe-seat MPs), but as they voted for him/the party, he, as the representative of that party, has a legitimate mandate to be an MP. For that reason, there is no audacity in doing the job he has been elected to do.

maybe I could just phrase it like this: ed miliband knew he wasn't popular as a person (e.g. in his own constituency I'm sure). maybe ed miliband knew he wasn't really more popular than his brother in the leadership contest and that his selection, although technically "legitimate", wouldn't have gone down too well, especially since the person who won the popular labour vote was his own brother. maybe ed should have seen that him being the leader would have led to the downfall of his party. surely what he should have done was to admit his failure as a person and bow out of the business just like tony blair? it's a matter of personal responsibility more than constitutionality

Yeah that's right. It's just ****ing annoying when people, who have clearly not watched the budget, say that IDS cheered the cuts. He didn't - he cheered the raise in the minimum wage.

Absolutely right, and I've shared this sentiment exactly in my last post (perhaps the post before that). He lost an election and should have stepped down, as he did. His Labour Party was not the Labour Party most of the country wanted, and so it was his personal responsibility to step down.

This does not mean, however, that his position as an MP is illegitimate (as was implied by commenting on his audacity to carry on as a politician). He is a democratically elected MP (albeit on the left of the parliamentary party) and therefore has every right to remain so. Is he in a safe seat? Yes, along with over half of other MPs. Does the country want him to be leader? No. But is his Parliamentary seat illegitimate because he failed to become PM? Absolutely not. Would the country want to see Huw Merriman (my MP in a safe seat) PM? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be an MP.

all I'm saying is consider this: he is a terrible individual and he shouldn't really be involved in anything political now after all he's done. he knows how much of a mess his job in politics has been, surely. I know. constitutionally, he became elected. I'm not debating that. I'm saying that he should be ashamed and his presence in the house of commons is going to be just as awkward as gordon brown's. we probably won't see very much of ed miliband while he sticks around

Why does everyone dislike Jeremy Hunt ??

Why does everyone dislike Jeremy Hunt ??

At a guess, they by the privatisation of the NHS rhetoric and the rhetoric that the HSCA was inherently a bad thing, in much the sand way that people hate Give for his education reforms because they can't look beyond their own selfishness and the rhetoric against it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That's a bit ridiculous.
'The only reason people could dislike a tory is because they're stupid and selfish'.
So they can't have any legitimate objections apparently and we must worship the ground they walk on.

What were the complaints, were they about quality? No, they were about how people actually have to do some bloody work for a change rather than being handed their grades on a plate

Let's cut out the suicide wishes please.