Given the reality of a hung parliament, I can only offer that it is proven by argument that nobody could fault, a conclusion that nobody could believe: that although it appears to us that we refer to plurality of qualified and changing parties, in reality there is only one thing to be referred to, and to conceive of this as qualified, divided, or pluralized in any way is to imply absurdities.
Did someone actually say this?
Why, yes. How else could I post it?
Interesting the things poeple say about the result.
Democracy at work, Gordon Brown isn’t voted in again
He was, but only in his home constituency. So far as the national level goes, that’s twice he hasn’t been elected.
In principle, British Prime Ministers are not elected by a national vote. They are selected as leader of their party by their party. Therefore, leaders of paries can come and go without the requirement for a general election.
Under the current constitution, you are quite right, democracy is working albeit in a confusing manner to those that are unfamiliar with the constitution.
Unfortunately, we who live in democracies appear to be governed by media-driven opinions.
Same setup over here.
The administrative area, region and ceremonial county of Greater London, including the City of London, is divided into 74 parliamentary constituencies which are all borough constituencies.
Of these, only 11% have changed party in the general election.
On reflection I think, maybe, you were asking if someone actually said this in th electon?
Probably not.
It is an adaptation I made from Greek, Eleatic, philosphical argument, in order to demonstrate the confsuion in debate regarding the possibility of a coalition government as a result of the British general elelection.
The original reads:
Parmenides and Melissus of the Eleatic school
“They proved by an argument that nobody could fault, a conclusion that nobody could believe: that although it appears to us that we refer to plurality of qualified and changing objects, in reality there is only one thing to be referred to, and to conceive of this as qualified, divided, or pluralized in any way is to imply absurdities.”
Of course, this is essential bedtime reading. :lol:
This same hang up occurred in the U.S. awhile back, it took forever to decide who won what, That election,and this one were conducted during what is called in Astronomical circles, Mercury Retrograde. It is said that this condition befuddles agreements,details and communications of all sorts. The present retrograde will end on the 11th of this Month, so all of you folks from The U.K. will have your answers in due course. You will also find that through a typographical error, Haggis will be declared the National dish of all of Great Britain. Billy Connolly will deliver the news to Her Majesty. 
Add in Brown stepping down with the possibility there could still been a Labour PM and the Mercury Retrograde starts to make sense 
Brown hasn’t resigned, he’s just said he’s willing to resign eventually if the Lib Dems are willing to keep him and his party in power just that little bit longer…
I never said resigned
He’s stepping down as from leader of the Labor Party, still be a while before a new leader is picked but that still means Labor could be in power but it wouldn’t be Brown as PM unless he changes his mind.
Well he’s resigned now.
Well, Brown has stood down now, and we have a new PM and government.
Let’s see where Mercury and the other Gods of Downing Street lead us. 
I thought I was fairly literate, but this long, tedious sentence is almost totally incomprehensible. Are you in politics?
I doubt that 32Bravo is in politics as, going forward, he would be, like, absolutely committed to providing a safe haven (as distinct from an unsafe haven as a haven is by definition a safe place) where, going forward, he would have indicated as politicians never say that they say somethimg, that, in terms of the question you asked, he would avoid a longwinded answer but would cut to the chase and, in terms of the question you asked, he would be unable to answer it in detail because it is a hypothetical question and politicians never answer hypothetical questions.
But 32Bravo isn’t a politician, so what the **** is he on about?
P.S. I don’t like this new rude word filter which renders forceful words like **** as asterisks. I mean, what the **** is the ****ing point of the ****ing asterisks? It’s like some **** can’t handle plain ****ing language. Then again, if you want to f u c k up the f u c k i n g filter, just put a space between each letter. About the same level of sophistication as the Big Brother filter the Australian government is going to impose on us, and about as workable.
Methinks we have in our Hell Fire midst, an M.P. who speaks in strange tongues,
Would you not agree, that any person with a poltical opinion is in politics?
I think the sentence not long nor tedious - but it was the result of an original thought! :lol:
Every one a gem, RS! :lol:
Life, the universe and all that! :lol: