So the campaign is over and we have a very surprising result. A coalition of two parties that some say have very different ideologies. A liberal party and a right wing party (by European standards) joined in formal coalition.
Now you might say that the UK election is not very interesting to the rest of the world. Before you swiftly leave the thread look at this graph: As you can see the polls have been quite stable for months, showing a slight Conservative lead ,but then with just over 2 weeks to go till polling day (we are voting on the 6th of May) the Liberal party had a massive swing in the polls.
Let me briefly explain the colours: Red is the Labour Party, they form the current Government. They are a center right party, roughly similar to Obama. Led by Gordon Brown and Tony Blair before him. Blue is the Conservative Party, the current opposition. They are similar to Labour but slightly more right wing. Famously led by Margaret Thatcher. Between them the Conservatives and Labour have ruled the country for 65 years. Yellow is the Liberal Democrats a center-left party.
So what caused this massive poll swing so close to the election? On the 14th of April the UK had the first live TV debate in it's history. TV Debates have been talked about for years but never happened. Whilst Labour was ahead in the polls they refused to have a live debate. With nothing to gain and everything to lose it simply wasn't worth taking the risk. Now in the run-up to the 2010 election Labour and Mr Brown were behind in the polls. They felt Mr Cameron (Conservative) was beating them on style and so this time they agreed to have a debate in an attempt to get back in power. However, in what could turn out to be one of the biggest election blunders in history, they agreed to allow the Liberals a podium in the debate and crucially equal time to speak.
The result was incredible. Whilst Cameron and Brown argued between themselves over policy Mr Clegg (Liberal) was able to stand aside and present his message. Clegg made the others look quite stupid. While they tried to score political points off each other he simply offered "real change" and a move away from "old politics". Bear in mind this debate was watched by an estimated 9.4 Million people, almost half of which had never even heard Liberal policies. To put that into perspective, Labour won the 2005 election with 9.5 million votes.
What happens next is incredibly hard to predict. With two more debates will the Liberals policies be "found out" as the other parties claim? Is the poll bounce simply a blip or will it be sustained? Whatever happens the next two weeks will certainly be interesting.
* Secure the recovery by supporting the economy and halving the deficit by 2014 through growth, fair taxes and cuts to lower priority spending.
* Will not raise basic, higher and new top rates of tax in the next Parliament.
* No extension of VAT on food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares.
* Realise stakes in publicly-controlled banks, introduce a global levy and reform banking rules.
* Create UK Finance for Growth, bringing £4 billion together to provide capital for growing businesses.
* Up to 70,000 advanced apprenticeships a year and Skills Accounts for workers to upgrade their skills.
* Create one million skilled jobs and modernise infrastructure with high speed rail, a green investment bank and broadband access for all.
* No stamp duty for first-time buyers on all house purchases below £250,000 for two years, paid for by a 5% rate on homes worth more than £1 million.
* Require a super-majority of two-thirds of shareholders in corporate takeovers.
* Job or training place for young people out of work for six months but benefits cut at ten months if they refuse a place. Guarantee of work for anyone unemployed for more than two years.
* National Minimum Wage to rise in line with average earnings.
* Ensure excellence is spread across public services with 1,000 schools to become part of high standard accredited schools groups, every hospital a Foundation Trust and underperforming police forces or borough commanders replaced or taken over.
* Right to recall MPs, referendum on the alternative vote for the Commons, referendum on a democratic second chamber, free vote in Parliament on reducing the voting age to 16.
* Help for parents to balance work and family life, with a "Father's Month" of flexible paid leave.
* A new Toddler Tax Credit of £4 a week from 2012 to all parents of young children.
* National Care Service to ensure free care in the home for those with the greatest care needs, cap on the costs of residential care.
* Re-establish the link between the Basic State Pension and earnings from 2012.
* An expansion of free nursery places for two-year-olds and 15 hours a week of flexible, free nursery education for three and four-year-olds.
* Give parents the power to bring in new school leadership teams, through mergers and takeovers, with up to 1,000 secondary schools part of an accredited schools group by 2015.
* Every young person guaranteed education or training until 18, with 75% going on to higher education, or completing an advanced apprenticeship or technician level training, by the age of 30. "
* Cutting taxes for millions of working people by increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, paid for by tackling tax avoidance and by a "mansion tax" of 1% on properties worth over £2 million.
* Setting a £400 pay rise cap for all public sector workers, initially for two years, ensuring that the lowest paid are eligible for the biggest percentage rise.
* Scrapping ID cards and the next generation of biometric passports, and removing innocent people from the DNA database.
* Reforming prisons by reducing the number of short-term prison sentences. There would be a "presumption against" jail terms of less than six months, with "rigorously enforced" community sentences favoured.
* Making prisoners work and contribute from their prison wages to a compensation fund for victims.
* Immediately restoring the link between the basic state pension and earnings and giving people more flexibility by allowing them to access part of their personal pension fund early.
* No like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent. The Eurofighter Tranche 3B would be cancelled and there would be a full defence review to establish Britain's future security.
* Introducing a banking levy so that banks pay back taxpayer support, until they can be split up in order to insulate retail banking from investment risks.
* Increasing funding for the most disadvantaged pupils, around one million children, by investing £2.5 billion in a "pupil premium". Headteachers would be free to spend this on cutting class sizes, attracting the best teachers or offering extra one-to-one tuition.
* Scrapping "unfair" university tuition fees for all students taking their first degree, including those studying part-time.
* Cutting the size of the Department of Health in half and abolishing unnecessary quangos.
* Giving a pay rise to the lower ranks of the Armed Forces so their pay is brought into line with the starting salary of the emergency services.
* Getting 3,000 more police on the beat and reducing time-wasting bureaucracy at police stations.
* In Parliament, introducing a "single transferable vote" system of proportional representation, where candidates are ranked in order of preference, and reducing the number of MPs by 150.
* Lowering the voting age to 16 and bringing in a recall system to sack MPs who have broken the rules, allowing constituents to force a by-election in cases of "serious wrongdoing".
* Capping political donations at £10,000 and limiting election spending; replacing the House of Lords with a fully-elected chamber with "considerably fewer members".
* Safeguard Britain's credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament set out in an emergency Budget within 50 days of taking office.
* Create the conditions for higher exports, business investment and savings, while cutting youth unemployment.
* Raise productivity growth in the public sector.
* Reform the regulation and structure of the banking system.
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the UK's share of global markets for low carbon technologies.
* Cut a net £6 billion of waste in departmental spending in 2010-11.
* Freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011.
* Cut ministers' pay by 5%, followed by a five-year freeze.
* Reduce the number of MPs by 10% and cap public sector pensions above £50,000.
* Reverse Labour's planned National Insurance hike for anyone earning under £35,000 next year.
* Create a single Work Programme for everyone who is unemployed.
* Boost small businesses with automatic rate relief.
* Cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies' rate to 20p.
* Set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK.
* Block plans for second runways at Stansted and Gatwick, while starting work on new high speed rail network.
* Freeze council tax for two years and scrap plans for a revaluation.
* Re-link the basic state pension to earnings and protect the winter fuel payment.
* Give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider which meets NHS standards within NHS prices.
* Stop the "forced" closure of accident and emergency wards, and commission a 24/7 urgent care service in every area of England.
* Raise standards in schools by enhancing the status of teachers and allowing state schools the freedom to offer same high quality international exams that private schools offer.
* Give parents the power to save local schools threatened by closure.
* Crack down on drink and drug-fuelled violence.
* Cut police paperwork to get more officers on the beat.
* Give voters the right to kick out MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
* Publish more data so the public can hold government to account.
* Permanently raise the stamp duty threshold to £250,000 for first-time buyers.
* Scrap ID cards, cut back surveillance powers and "intrusive" powers of entry into people's homes.
* Give Parliament a vote on repeal of the Hunting Act.
* Create a new National Security Adviser and develop a National Security Strategy.
* Double the operational allowance for Armed Forces serving abroad.
* Introduce a referendum "lock" ensuring a vote on the transfer of any more powers to the EU.
Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Keep us updated on the happenings over in Britain.
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
God dammit, I was going to make a huge post about the general election for ages but work's been keeping me busy . It was going to involve pokemon analogies TT
Regardless, this is an interesting election even though the parties aren't as different (for good reason) as they could be. The biggest argument is who can manage cost the best way and bring the budget deficit down the least painfully.
Each party has some good policies and a few bad, each party has some great politicians and a few bad. Hard to make up one's mind in a constituency like Brighton where Caroline Lucas holds her Green seat. Might be hi-tailing it up to Twickenham where my parents live to vote Vince Cable, seeing as I think he's a great asset to British politics.
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Lib Dems are barely considered contention (by most ignorant people). They were essentially very lucky to get equal time in this debate. Former leader Paddy Ashdown said he would have given an arm and a leg for the opportunity. UKIP is absolutely tiny by comparison. It wouldn't make any sense, unless you allowed all the fringe parties to join in. Which would give us less time to scrutinize the main parties. UKIP has some interesting policies but they are mostly old conservatism and they are shallow when compared to the bigger parties; in terms of costing and such.
On April 20 2010 19:42 Mystlord wrote: Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
That's right yes. We have a "first past the post" system in areas called constituencies. Each constituency win is an MP in parliament, which is one vote in parliament. There are 646 total seats in parliament so you need 324 to control a majority and govern effectively.
The system is unfair because just "pipping" a seat is just as good as winning it by miles. The Liberals will absolutely smash the vote in the south-west and probably other rural areas but the swing still isn't enough for them to take many seats from Labour heartland in the North or the Conservative strong seats in the South.
When you look at the projections assuming a uniform swing in votes, the results are ridiculous. With current figures of popular votes at 33% Conservative 30% Lib Dem and 28% Labour. Labour would gain 276 seats (the most) The Conservatives would gain 245 seats The Liberals would gain 100 seats
There would then have to be a coalition Government between either Liberal-Labour or Liberal-Conservative since you need a majority to pass laws.
On April 20 2010 19:51 Klive5ive wrote: The system is unfair
You should probably give the other side of the argument here. Although I agree with the statement, the point is that it's easier to get parliament majorities and avoid hung parliaments with first past the post.
It might also be interesting to add that now we have a great time, as always, in British politics where all of the best speakers and highest-up politicians in the parties are wheeled out to debate against each other. The Daily Politics is having a series of 45 min debates about different aspects of policy involving different members of each party, they look like they will be very interesting. Especially the eduction debate between Ed Balls, Michael Gove and David Laws.
Another interesting quirk of our country is that our interviewers are almost all cunts. While most interviewers in America are deferential, most of our interviewers make you want to slap them with how much they interrupt and how incredibly rude they are when they don't get their way (they try to force politicians to make negative sound bytes and tie them up in knots). The plus side of this gargoyle interview style is that occasionally interviewers actually have a good point, and their devil's advocacy plays an important role in seriously testing the credibility of party plans and manifesto coherency, a lot deeper than the American system.
On April 20 2010 19:42 Mystlord wrote: Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
Historically the Lib Dems always do much much better in the polls than they do on the election day. They are more of a protest vote and alot of people say in polls I will vote Lib Dems to try and scare the two large parties into changing things up a bit. When it comes to the election though Lib Dems will be unlikely to win alot of seats.
Labour always do a bit better in the election than they do in polls, purely because they are in government since 1997 and people will say in a poll they will vote for someone else then when it comes to election day vote Labour anyway 'because they always have'.
As for this election then I'd expect conservatives to take it as a majority government or to form a minority government and have a hung parliament.
Other parties like UKIP, BNP to the extreme right and Green, Socialist, Communist etc. to the extreme left won't get a look in a big election because people will vote for one of the 3 big parties or they won't vote. UKIP might pick up 5 or so seats but I'd be surprised if they got more than that. Would be surprised if any of the other parties got more than two seats a piece. SNP and Plaid Cymru might do 5 or so though just depends.
Lib Dems will not win the election though, would be very surprised if Lib Dems got more than 70 seats out of the 634 avaliable.
I would expect something like Conservatives 290-350, Labour 200-300, Lib Dems 50-70. Labour are a bit of a tough one to put a number on, they might do horribly but they are always behind in the polls then win anyway so I guess we will need to wait and see. Just gotta remember that most polls are only done in England and that almost everyone in Scotland/Wales votes labour.
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP (member of european parliament). We have seperate elections for our MEPs (i.e. he's safe).
Labour and Conservative are very similar yes. They like to pretend they are different and people often think they are but many have analysed their policies and put them in an almost identical position on the center right of the political scale. The main difference is funding. Conservatives are funded mainly by the rich, Labour are funded by the working unions. Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government. Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 50% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances. Whoever gets in is in an awful position. They will have to raise taxes and slash public spending. The result will be more unemployment and probably high inflation too. The pound will fall against the Euro and the Dollar.. yeah the outlook isn't great.
There are no "requirements" for the debate. There has never been a debate before. They just agreed terms for the first time and the two main parties agreed to having the Liberals there too.
The last election was actually incredibly tribal interestingly. The Lib Dems drew almost all their seats from the north of Scotland, the middle of Wales and the south west of England. The conservatives were almost entirely in the south/middle of England. Labour was almost entirely middle-northern England.
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government.
Wow ok someone's biased. And that statement wasn't just incredibly sweeping...:/
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 170% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances.
Those two things aren't inexorably linked to the Labour party. They are linked mostly to the global crash and the UK's reliance on London as a financial centre, and partly to Gordon Brown's spendthrift policy in the time of plenty.
Do you honestly think the Conservatives would have left the country in a better position? Ok they spend a lot less money usually, BUT they were for more and more deregulation of the banks, and their plans of what to do when the banking crisis occurred have been universally condemned by almost all major authorities.
Whoever gets in is in an awful position. They will have to raise taxes and slash public spending. The result will be more unemployment and probably high inflation too. The pound will fall against the Euro and the Dollar.. yeah the outlook isn't great.
This is the only opinion of yours that I would pronounce as ubiquitous in this country. If pessimism isn't British, nothing is.
Its kind of a terrible situation in politics, the MP's don't actually care about their constituency once they get into power. They never actually engage with the people except at election time and there is no transparency as to what they actually do other then sit about.
Lib Dems policies sound better then the other 2 as they are willing to make changes that might stop the rotten workings of many things in politics. Hoping for the best but this is politics the people rarely win.
On April 20 2010 20:12 Adeeler wrote: Its kind of a terrible situation in politics, the MP's don't actually care about their constituency once they get into power. They never actually engage with the people except at election time and there is no transparency as to what they actually do other then sit about.
I agree that the system whereby we have to choose between local issues or national issues and make a compromise is fairly annoying. But I'd take issue with your point about MPs neglecting constituencies. Of course you get a fair share of centrally issued party cronies who couldn't give two hoots about constituencies, but most MPs work very hard for their constituencies- running surgeries, giving meetings and implementing local policy. It would be nice to see a system whereby we vote for governors of regions independently of parliament representatives of regions; but especially at this time when you want to be cutting money spent at Whitehall, it seems ludicrous to do anything of the sort.
Delicious British accents. The same debate in Australia will always have debaters pausing with umms mid sentence. So annoying. The UK politicians seems like better public speakers.
meh, I don't even care anymore. Conservative will probably win, and that'll be no better than Labour which to be honest is no better than what Lib Dem would be if anyone ever voted for them.
Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government. Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 170% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances.
If you are referring to government debt the figure is nowhere near that high. Nor is it particularly high by historic standards:
The hysteria over the deficit is an unfortunate distraction from more important matters such as employment levels and productivity, in my view. But it fits with a certain dominant economic ideology, which is why it is central to the mainstream discussion as framed by the media and the political establishment.
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government.
Wow ok someone's biased. And that statement wasn't just incredibly sweeping...:/
Well my views are not without evidence. If you read the 2005 Labour manifesto they have achieved almost nothing they set out to do. I have a copy of the financial review 2005 in my office. The title reads "Brown hails new economic stability". Yet in that year he borrowed Billions of pounds to fund public sector increases. He calls this "investment" but he doesn't understand the meaning of the word. He borrowed money to pay for something we would never be able to afford. Much of the little he has achieved is down to the debt he has placed on the next generation. If that's not incompetence I don't know what is.
On April 20 2010 20:03 Klive5ive wrote: Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government.
Wow ok someone's biased. And that statement wasn't just incredibly sweeping...:/
Well my views are not without evidence. If you read the 2005 Labour manifesto they have achieved almost nothing they set out to do. I have a copy of the financial review 2005 in my office. The title reads "Brown hails new economic stability". Yet in that year he borrowed Billions of pounds to fund public sector increases. He calls this "investment" but he doesn't understand the meaning of the word. He borrowed money to pay for something we would never be able to afford. Much of the little he has achieved is down to the debt he has placed on the next generation. If that's not incompetence I don't know what is.
Everything you are saying here is arguable. You have to realise the difference between spreading your opinion and being informative. And don't mask one as being the other.
The banking crisis issue is complex. You're oversimplifying that and everything else. If you were honest and cognisant of the actual situation, you'd probably be fairer to Labour even if you still disapproved of them. And this is coming from a guy who is 1/3 Labour 1/3 conservative 1/3 liberal.
Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government. Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 170% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances.
If you are referring to government debt the figure is nowhere near that high. Nor is it particularly high by historic standards:
The hysteria over the deficit is an unfortunate distraction from more important matters such as employment levels and productivity, in my view. But it fits with a certain dominant economic ideology, which is why it is central to the mainstream discussion as framed by the media and the political establishment.
Agree with this 100% ^^
The debt is blown wildly out or proportion by the conservatives who are basically trying to frighten people into voting conservative.
50% of GDP is pretty bad but likes of Japan which is the worlds 2nd biggest economy per head has closer to 100% I believe. And Germany and France are at 75-80% or so too.
Other countries like USA, Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, countries people might think are very successful all have greater debts or around the same debts per GDP than the UK.
UK ain't doing particularly bad by any means when compared with other countries. Yeah the recession was pretty bad here but thats only because the UK has alot of banks and because it was doing so well to begin with so it fell hardest. I would rather be in a country that was strong and went down a bit than a country that was weaker and stayed around the same. When the banks get rolling again then the UK will be up there with the best economies.
He borrowed money to pay for something we would never be able to afford. Much of the little he has achieved is down to the debt he has placed on the next generation.
Not to get into a Labour/Tory slanging match but the next generation can just add that to the payments on all the Conservative-initiated PFI projects we're still paying off. Remember those? 'We can't afford this hospital, so we'll get a businessman to build it now, then pay it off for the next 20 years, with lots of interest'. Gordon Brown wasn't the only one passing the tab off onto future generations.
This is where I got that 170% from, I didn't get the context correct.
I don't think I need to stress too much how important it is to get these things correct when you are discussing important and complex topics such as this.
He is referring to average household debt. It is now unclear what your original point was supposed to be, unless you are intending to put the blame for households taking on too much debt directly at Gordon Brown's door. The 170% figure you have cited does not in any way support your earlier critique of the managing of the public finances, since it bears no direct relation to the public finances.
I agree 100% but trying to tie this issue in exclusively with Labour is foolhardy.
EDIT: When I say I agree, I mean with Klive's statement about taking the budget deficit lightly.
EDIT 2: There's also a huge danger when the economists get involved of making an election entirely about economics. Very dodgy. Economists' science is completely amoral. There should be some mention of the social policies each party plans to implement.
In fact, no offense but the starting OP is fairly drastically lacking so much information to make the conversation interesting. Putting in some manifesto statements concerning how each party will deal with foreign policy, immigration, education, the NHS, policing, disabilities, welfare and taxes would be a good start.
This is where I got that 170% from, I didn't get the context correct.
I don't think I need to stress too much how important it is to get these things correct when you are discussing important and complex topics such as this.
He is referring to average household debt. It is now unclear what your original point was supposed to be, unless you are intending to put the blame for households taking on too much debt directly at Gordon Brown's door. The 170% figure you have cited does not in any way support your earlier critique of the managing of the public finances, since it bears no direct relation to the public finances.
I've changed my other post to the 50% figure. I was talking about public finances obviously.
However, Brown must also take some responsibility for household debt too. Encouraging huge numbers to University, taking money from the pension funds and not regulating bank lending all contribute to household debt.
On April 20 2010 21:03 sc4k wrote: I agree 100% but trying to tie this issue in exclusively with Labour is foolhardy.
EDIT: When I say I agree, I mean with Klive's statement about taking the budget deficit lightly.
Of course you are right the problem is a long term issue which both parties must take responsibilty for. The only reason I focused on Labour is I don't know much about what the Tories did. I'm a first time voter and I wasn't aware of politics when the Tories were in power. The only thing I can see are the effects of 13 years of Labour and it's not good. Whether the Tories would have been any better is a different question.
On April 20 2010 21:03 sc4k wrote: EDIT 2: There's also a huge danger when the economists get involved of making an election entirely about economics. Very dodgy. Economists' science is completely amoral. There should be some mention of the social policies each party plans to implement.
In fact, no offense but the starting OP is fairly drastically lacking so much information to make the conversation interesting. Putting in some manifesto statements concerning how each party will deal with foreign policy, immigration, education, the NHS, policing, disabilities, welfare and taxes would be a good start.
Yeah you're right I should have added more information. I didn't really know how this thread would turn out. The point of the OP was to discuss the Liberals and the massive effect the TV debate had; since it's an interesting topic everyone can get involved in. I guess there's more than enough UK people on TL to start a large debate on party politics, I didn't initally expect this.
Edit: What's quite ironic I guess is that we've barely talked about the Liberals at all, even though they are now at 30% of the vote xD
The University accusation is fair, but why are you making it @ Brown? In that situation, it's entirely to do with Labour and in fact is right to attack the party.
Deregulation is not a fair accusation, because the Tories were almost always pressing for more deregulation. Taking money from pension funds (I'm quite hazy on the actual situation but it's something like changing the way dividends work and removing protection from pensions- anyone care to enlighten) is something that is debatably bad. It hurts hoarders and savers but then again they hurt society by not spending. It also hurts rich motherfuckers but that's hardly a bad thing.
If you want to accuse Labour of something, it's that they spent any surplus money the Tories saved on loads of schemes for loads of people. They spent much more on University grants, disability initiatives and IT facilities in state schools etc (and that's a big etc because they are just some examples) than the Tories ever would have.
And don't forget welfare cor blimey. That's a battleground. And very shaky at that. David Freud, the rottweiler businessman from the city, the arch conservative whom my dad actually knows quite well; is in charge of Tory welfare policy. If you could hear him talk about welfare policy you'd realise there's a BIG shakeup to come if the Tories get a majority and Freud keeps his job.
This is where I got that 170% from, I didn't get the context correct.
I don't think I need to stress too much how important it is to get these things correct when you are discussing important and complex topics such as this.
He is referring to average household debt. It is now unclear what your original point was supposed to be, unless you are intending to put the blame for households taking on too much debt directly at Gordon Brown's door. The 170% figure you have cited does not in any way support your earlier critique of the managing of the public finances, since it bears no direct relation to the public finances.
I've changed my other post to the 50% figure. I was talking about public finances obviously.
However, Brown must also take some responsibility for household debt too. Encouraging huge numbers to University, taking money from the pension funds and not regulating bank lending all contribute to household debt.
Actually I agree that there is a relation between government economic policy and household debt, although the topic is a complex one. However, all the main parties subscribe to the general economic paradigm that has led to this particular situation. (As do the main parties in pretty much all the developed nations, erroneously in my view)
If you want a club to beat the current Labour Government with you will find many of them but the one you seem to want to use also smacks the other main parties equally well.
I have my own views on the issue of excessive private debt but as I said the topic is a complex one.
I will point out, however, that the public deficits which seem to so concern people are themselves a function of de-leveraging in the private economy. As households and private companies try to reduce their debt this impacts aggregate demand in the economy which naturally forces public deficits up. Reducing debt -> lower spending -> reduced aggregate demand -> lower tax revenues and higher welfare payments -> rising government deficits. Unfortunately these natural relations appear to be of no interest to a mainstream media whose duty it should be to appropriately inform the electorate on these important matters.
I wouldn't accuse the media mate, I'd accuse the public. Have you seen the pure shit that streams in whenever the public are allowed to say anything? "COS ITZ LIKE I DONT FINK LABUR IZ GUD CUZ DEY IZ STEELIN ALL DA MUNY COZ DEY IZ BEST BLUDS WIV DA BANKAZ AND DEY ALL CUM FROM WEST LONDON WOT IZ WELL GAY"
If the public didn't suck so much, the media would put more intelligence into reporting. But sensationalist, zero-effort media has so much more effect with the dumbass people. It's like, the media is full of very clever people intentionally being very clever about very dumb things- like specific mistakes in language people make or trying to pin down MPs on issues that are extremely complex and looking for a yes/no answer so the idiot public can get some bitesized politics.
Although Straight Talk with Andrew Neil is pretty hench
On April 20 2010 21:14 sc4k wrote: The University accusation is fair, but why are you making it @ Brown? In that situation, it's entirely to do with Labour and in fact is right to attack the party.
Deregulation is not a fair accusation, because the Tories were almost always pressing for more deregulation. Taking money from pension funds (I'm quite hazy on the actual situation but it's something like changing the way dividends work and removing protection from pensions- anyone care to enlighten) is something that is debatably bad. It hurts hoarders and savers but then again they hurt society by not spending. It also hurts rich motherfuckers but that's hardly a bad thing.
If you want to accuse Labour of something, it's that they spent any surplus money the Tories saved on loads of schemes for loads of people. They spent much more on University grants, disability initiatives and IT facilities in state schools etc (and that's a big etc because they are just some examples) than the Tories ever would have.
And don't forget welfare cor blimey. That's a battleground. And very shaky at that. David Freud, the rottweiler businessman from the city, the arch conservative whom my dad actually knows quite well; is in charge of Tory welfare policy. If you could hear him talk about welfare policy you'd realise there's a BIG shakeup to come if the Tories get a majority and Freud keeps his job.
Are you fucking kidding me? Go watch Irwin Schiffs 'How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't' right now. Hell Classical Economists figured this shit out over 600 years ago. You have to invest to grow an Economy, and the only way to invest is to save. This is called a low time preference.
Economics is also not amoral, as I would heartedly recommend some Bastiat. Anyways, if you guys want to implode your whole country through reckless fiscal policy, and emotional tripes, or class envy, be my guest, though I would advise against such actions. Perhaps Britain can look back to their past for the future; ala Bright & Cobden?
Anyways, I wish you blokes the best of luck, but don't be surprised when the house of cards fall down, and they will as this is going to get much worse. Cheers.
On April 20 2010 19:42 Mystlord wrote: Yeah I heard about this. Apparently it's also true that if the Lib Dems were to win the election right now, there'd be a problem since they'd win in the popular vote but not in the electoral college? (or the British equivalent). At least that's what I heard.
That's right yes. We have a "first past the post" system in areas called constituencies. Each constituency win is an MP in parliament, which is one vote in parliament. There are 646 total seats in parliament so you need 324 to control a majority and govern effectively.
The system is unfair because just "pipping" a seat is just as good as winning it by miles. The Liberals will absolutely smash the vote in the south-west and probably other rural areas but the swing still isn't enough for them to take many seats from Labour heartland in the North or the Conservative strong seats in the South.
When you look at the projections assuming a uniform swing in votes, the results are ridiculous. With current figures of popular votes at 33% Conservative 30% Lib Dem and 28% Labour. Labour would gain 276 seats (the most) The Conservatives would gain 245 seats The Liberals would gain 100 seats
There would then have to be a coalition Government between either Liberal-Labour or Liberal-Conservative since you need a majority to pass laws.
The inherent unfairness of FPTP keeps out minor parties, prevents coalitions and creates artificial landslides. These are all good things. It forces a centralisation of politics and gives Governments the power to enact their legislation without getting tied up by continual rebellions. A coalition Government is a Government nobody voted for with no manifesto whereas a weak Government such as Major's last years is worthless. FPTP is a good thing, it sucks to be the liberals because FPTP is a two party system and they're the third party but that's a price we have to pay.
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Keep us updated on the happenings over in Britain.
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
The old Liberal Party died down to just a few wackos in the 1920s. Then in the 1980s Labour went really left wing and the sane members of it realised that they'd never win another election if they did that so they broke off to form the Social Democratic Party. Then they unified with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats who are socially liberal but economically socialist. The core of the Lib Dems has always been the defections from Labour rather than the Liberal Party. There aren't official requirements to enter the debate because this is the first time a debate like this has ever happened. But UKIP are not a serious contender in national elections, they have no place there.
On April 20 2010 21:36 sc4k wrote: lolwat? I think you've confused the word patriots with the phrase bigoted idiots who don't know shit about anything.
unless you are joking. Which would be nice.
Personally, from what I know (which isn't much) I would probably be a UKIP supporter if I lived in Britain. AFAIK they are quasi-libertarian and anti-EU.
The BNP of today has several positions that I might agree with, but Griffin apparently does not even have the necessary intellect to plausibly hide some of his more clearly unacceptable views, so he's obviously not fit for any important gov't position .
On April 20 2010 21:33 HnR)hT wrote: UKIP or BNP? Our fellow patriots across the pond have some tough decisions.
BNP are anything, but patriots. UKIP though are an interesting bunch. I like Nigel Farage, but UKIP as a whole do not have the radical base philosophy to really rocket the country forward, but they would be mightedly preferrable to the other parties. I am very retiscent on their defense spending plank, which I feel is very detrimental, and as they say, Politicians will always find a use for an Army. I think Elbridge Gerry here is very pertinent :p
On April 20 2010 19:45 DexterHGTourney wrote: Would have liked to see UKIP represented (Or at least Daniel Hannan debate the other parties). As far as I know, all three parties above are pretty identical, at least from the few Brits I've talked to anyways.
Just curious what are the requirements in order to enter the debate? Is it ridiculously absurd like getting 15% in the previous Presidential race, or polling something like 20-25%?
Keep us updated on the happenings over in Britain.
Edit: I thought Europeans still used Liberal in the classical sense, no?
The old Liberal Party died down to just a few wackos in the 1920s. Then in the 1980s Labour went really left wing and the sane members of it realised that they'd never win another election if they did that so they broke off to form the Social Democratic Party. Then they unified with the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats who are socially liberal but economically socialist. The core of the Lib Dems has always been the defections from Labour rather than the Liberal Party. There aren't official requirements to enter the debate because this is the first time a debate like this has ever happened. But UKIP are not a serious contender in national elections, they have no place there.
Quite interesting. Thanks. Well, in regards to the UKIP bit, its a self-perpetuating phenomenan. It is much like the LP and CP here which is hampered by the very process. How do you expect to grow your movement and parties, if you are never included? I would love to see a Presidential Debate here featuring the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, GOP, Dems, Greens & Socialists.
(Latter four all being very similar, and the first two being quite similar, but very contrast to the last four. It would actually show people how fucking insane our system is when the "main" parties are carbon copies of themselves. Not really a two-party system then is it? Why even vote in that case haha)
Also found it hilarious that so called "Democratic" Parties, and their supporters rig the rules to preclude others from debate. Yeah...so democratic.
On April 20 2010 21:36 sc4k wrote: lolwat? I think you've confused the word patriots with the phrase bigoted idiots who don't know shit about anything.
unless you are joking. Which would be nice.
Personally, from what I know (which isn't much) I would probably be a UKIP supporter if I lived in Britain. AFAIK they are quasi-libertarian and anti-EU.
The BNP of today has several positions that I might agree with, but Griffin apparently does not even have the necessary intellect to plausibly hide some of his more clearly unacceptable views, so he's obviously not fit for any important gov't position .
There is a Libertarian Party in Britain, but I heard they only have like 1000 members. I would support them, but generally I'm apolitical.
On April 20 2010 21:28 sc4k wrote: I wouldn't accuse the media mate, I'd accuse the public. Have you seen the pure shit that streams in whenever the public are allowed to say anything? "COS ITZ LIKE I DONT FINK LABUR IZ GUD CUZ DEY IZ STEELIN ALL DA MUNY COZ DEY IZ BEST BLUDS WIV DA BANKAZ AND DEY ALL CUM FROM WEST LONDON WOT IZ WELL GAY"
If the public didn't suck so much, the media would put more intelligence into reporting.
Actually, I think that is a radical oversimplification and in fact I there is an important interrelationship between the two.
It's like, the media is full of very clever people intentionally being very clever about very dumb things
Having worked in the mainstream media in the past I can assure you that it is most definitely not full of "very clever people". The majority of national newspaper journalists I came across, for example, were sheeplike and as dumb as a bag of hair.
On April 20 2010 21:14 sc4k wrote: The University accusation is fair, but why are you making it @ Brown? In that situation, it's entirely to do with Labour and in fact is right to attack the party.
Deregulation is not a fair accusation, because the Tories were almost always pressing for more deregulation. Taking money from pension funds (I'm quite hazy on the actual situation but it's something like changing the way dividends work and removing protection from pensions- anyone care to enlighten) is something that is debatably bad. It hurts hoarders and savers but then again they hurt society by not spending. It also hurts rich motherfuckers but that's hardly a bad thing.
If you want to accuse Labour of something, it's that they spent any surplus money the Tories saved on loads of schemes for loads of people. They spent much more on University grants, disability initiatives and IT facilities in state schools etc (and that's a big etc because they are just some examples) than the Tories ever would have.
And don't forget welfare cor blimey. That's a battleground. And very shaky at that. David Freud, the rottweiler businessman from the city, the arch conservative whom my dad actually knows quite well; is in charge of Tory welfare policy. If you could hear him talk about welfare policy you'd realise there's a BIG shakeup to come if the Tories get a majority and Freud keeps his job.
Are you fucking kidding me? Go watch Irwin Schiffs 'How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't' right now. Hell Classical Economists figured this shit out over 600 years ago. You have to invest to grow an Economy, and the only way to invest is to save. This is called a low time preference.
Economics is also not amoral, as I would heartedly recommend some Bastiat. Anyways, if you guys want to implode your whole country through reckless fiscal policy, and emotional tripes, or class envy, be my guest, though I would advise against such actions. Perhaps Britain can look back to their past for the future; ala Bright & Cobden?
Anyways, I wish you blokes the best of luck, but don't be surprised when the house of cards fall down, and they will as this is going to get much worse. Cheers.
I know better than to argue with economists. You argue with yourselves enough. So I retract that statement. I'll accept it could look like I was attempting to speak from a position of knowledge but I tried to make it clear that I am a layman in economics. I'm sure there are just as many economists who would argue with you but I have no clue.
Where I am certain, however, is that money economics IS entirely amoral, just like science. It requires social politics to make sure it does not gain too much control. Economically, it's probably viable to basically forget about disabled people. Money economics is about how to make money. You might try to say that economics can also be about utilitarian style economics, where you are literally trying to economise happiness, but I wouldn't say that is the general result the majority of 'economists' are aiming for. They are aiming to maximise profits.
I'd just add this question: does it ever occur to you that people like me get a bit tired of every economist saying I should read or watch something, when so often these things completely contradict each other? I'd prefer a brief explanation of how saving is better than spending and how large private pensions are good for an economy.
On April 20 2010 21:28 sc4k wrote: I wouldn't accuse the media mate, I'd accuse the public. Have you seen the pure shit that streams in whenever the public are allowed to say anything? "COS ITZ LIKE I DONT FINK LABUR IZ GUD CUZ DEY IZ STEELIN ALL DA MUNY COZ DEY IZ BEST BLUDS WIV DA BANKAZ AND DEY ALL CUM FROM WEST LONDON WOT IZ WELL GAY"
If the public didn't suck so much, the media would put more intelligence into reporting.
Actually, I think that is a radical oversimplification and in fact I there is an important interrelationship between the two.
It's like, the media is full of very clever people intentionally being very clever about very dumb things
Having worked in the mainstream media in the past I can assure you that it is most definitely not full of "very clever people". The majority of national newspaper journalists I came across, for example, were sheeplike and as dumb as a bag of hair.
My example was hyperbole, but the statement 'I wouldn't accuse the media, I'd accuse the public' is imo perfectly fair. The media reflects society, no matter how many tin-hat conspiracy people will tell you the other way. The bbc especially (where most TV politics is) answers to the beck and call of the public, it needs as many ratings and as much interest as possible, so it can't raise the general standard. You need only to look at the danger BBC 4 as well as Radio 3 and 4 are in right now to see that the public doesn't in general respond well to intellectual consciousness-raising.
And I don't know who you've talked to in the media or what you mean by 'the media', but if you're going to tell me that pretty much any of the main political presenters/ columnists/ editors are sheep and stupid then I'm pretty surprised you could come to that conclusion.
On April 20 2010 19:44 ToT)OjKa( wrote: I just hope Conservatives don't take it. There's a reason they lost power 13 years ago and it doesn't sound like their ideas have changed since then.
Every big Labour policy in the last 8 years has come out of a Conservative think tank. Blair is the natual successor to Thatcher and Cameron to Blair. What we have seen is a return to consensus politics, Thatcher, like Attlee before her, showing the old establishment that the country had changed and politics must change with it. Tony Benn refused to accept it and almost killed the Labour party in doing so, the only thing keeping it alive as a semblance of a party in 1983 being the polarisation of votes with large groups of votes in small areas so they could win MPs through FPTP. However the Liberal SDP alliance (as it was then known) came very close to replacing them. After 1992 Labour worked it out and the Blair/Brown team rose to the fore. Politically Blair and Brown belong in the Lib Dems but they realised that they could reform Labour into a modern party while still getting millions of free votes from their old core voters who the Lib Dems could never appeal to. Thus you get New Labour which in the 1997 election commits itself to Conservative spending plans. After 18 years of Conservative Government Labour get in and promise not to spend any money. Unfortunately Brown couldn't keep it up and with the years of strong economic growth he didn't see the point. Although he promised an end to the boom bust cycle he accused the Conservatives in which they borrowed during recession and repaid during boom he spent from 1999 to the present day borrowing money. The result was that when the economy worsened as was always inevitable Brown was already heavily in debt. And this is absolutely his fault. Under Blair he was one of the most powerful Chancellors in recent history with absolute control of the budget, the borrowing that financed their public spending has to fall at his feet. And since Blair the role of Chancellor has been considerably weaker because it was Brown's job to fill rather than the role of some other figure with their own base of parliamentary support. Add to that the absurd debts the Government racked up with PPPs (Public Private Partnerships) and PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) in which he encouraged private money to invest in the public sector in exchange for long term profits. For example the private sector would build a new hospital, rent it to the Government for a dozen years and make their money back and then at the end of the contract the hospital reverts back to the private owners. Financially retarded, it's like leasing a house at several times the cost to mortgage one but politically by the time things go bad someone else is in power to raise the taxes while right now you can offer something for nothing.
Basically the parties are the same politically, the Lib Dems realising consensus politics started in 1983 and Labour in 1992. Since then the elections have been fought on the following big issues. 1997, doing what the Conservatives did, only better. 2001, keeping the pound when Conservatives said they would and Labour said they probably would, 2005, doing what Labour did, only better, 2010, doing what Labour did, only better.
However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long.
On April 20 2010 21:36 sc4k wrote: lolwat? I think you've confused the word patriots with the phrase bigoted idiots who don't know shit about anything.
unless you are joking. Which would be nice.
Personally, from what I know (which isn't much) I would probably be a UKIP supporter if I lived in Britain. AFAIK they are quasi-libertarian and anti-EU.
The BNP of today has several positions that I might agree with, but Griffin apparently does not even have the necessary intellect to plausibly hide some of his more clearly unacceptable views, so he's obviously not fit for any important gov't position .
Firstly you shouldn't mention the BNP and UKIP in the same sentence. UKIP are respectable whereas the BNP are pointless, idiotic thugs.
I'm not surprised an American agrees with UKIP, seeing as they are fairly close to the state of American politics. Some of their policies are interesting, such as the flat 31% tax. I'm not going to call you a bigoted idiot if you support UKIP. You are however pretty ignorant if you think the BNP is anything but destructive, evil politics and should always be marginalised.
On April 20 2010 22:15 KwarK wrote: However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long.
Your post was informative and interesting, even if extremely irritatingly laid out (computer paragraphs plz!). But the core message you have seems to be:
"I want the conservatives in power because I like to rotate control of the country after awhile"
Now forgive me if I'm wrong but don't you think there is any difference between the parties' social agendas? Even if, as you say, they may get ideas from each other and there may be a lot of similarity? Personally for me it makes quite a bit of difference which party gets elected not only because of the way I would like society to be run but also because it will specifically affect my life in the immediate future.
Also, aren't Labour 1 term short of equalling the previous Tory gov't?
UKIP represent a significant minority of people who are somewhat delusional about the world and like to place all the evils they see on foreigners because it's easier than addressing problems. Their statistics about the EU are laughably wrong (bureaucracy is way smaller than they claim and economic benefits are way bigger than they claim) and to leave or renogotiate EU membership would be impossible. In theory Parliament could just leave the EU just as Parliament could dismiss the Scottish Parliament or declare war on the moon. In practice though it would be politically impossible and I suspect the more intelligent members of UKIP recognise this. Basically it's old people who are bigots, generally disgruntled, blame everything on those brown guys who are probably asylum seekers stealing our jobs and benefits and vote in disproportionate numbers.
Although much of their politics is similar to legitimate parties in the United States UKIP have no history, no historical base of support. They are a new party based around a single issue and when it comes to general elections the people know that. They are a protest vote, a way of expressing discontent regarding foreigners invading white Britain and corrupting it's 1950s social values but they are not a vote for Government.
The BNP are just neo-Nazis. No more to say about that.
On April 20 2010 22:15 KwarK wrote: However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long.
Your post was informative and interesting, even if extremely irritatingly laid out (computer paragraphs plz!). But the core message you have seems to be:
"I want the conservatives in power because I like to rotate control of the country after awhile"
Now forgive me if I'm wrong but don't you think there is any difference between the parties' social agendas? Even if, as you say, they may get ideas from each other and there may be a lot of similarity? Personally for me it makes quite a bit of difference which party gets elected not only because of the way I would like society to be run but also because it will specifically affect my life in the immediate future.
Also, aren't Labour 1 term short of equalling the previous Tory gov't?
Yes they are.
If there are single issues you care about then by all means let that influence your vote. However it's important to realise that Labour has kept very few of their manifesto promises over the years and I don't expect much better from the Conservatives. With that in mind the political driving force is likely to be, as Macmillan said, "events, dear boy, events". When both parties believe the same things and neither can be held to any promise they make now then the question of how they'll react to situations becomes somewhat moot.
For example, if you really like the School Start program (and personally I think that's definitely something Labour did right) then by all means vote Labour because the Conservatives wish to cut it. But on anything bigger than those single issues it just doesn't matter.
The media reflects society, no matter how many tin-hat conspiracy people will tell you the other way.
And one does not have to be a "tin-hat conspiracy" person to maintain that your position that "the media reflects society" is, as I observed in my previous post, a radical oversimplification.
And I don't know who you've talked to in the media or what you mean by 'the media', but if you're going to tell me that pretty much any of the main political presenters/ columnists/ editors are sheep and stupid then I'm pretty surprised you could come to that conclusion.
In large institutions such as the mainstream media there will always be a cross-section. However, the point I was making was that from my own personal experience having worked in the newspaper industry you would likely be surprised at the level of the average intellect.
(@ Kwark) Well that's very agreeably explained and it just so happens that most of the ex politicians I've talked to had much the same tack.
Personally, I like moderate politics. But that's probably because I'm moderately persuaded. I enjoy deciding on the little differences, rejiggering the spending priorities and deciding how much dole money people get; but ultimately knowing we will still have British politics which I personally prefer the idea of than American politics or European politics. Where do you stand on the issue?
On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it.
The media reflects society, no matter how many tin-hat conspiracy people will tell you the other way.
And one does not have to be a "tin-hat conspiracy" person to maintain that your position that "the media reflects society" is, as I observed in my previous post, a radical oversimplification.
And I don't know who you've talked to in the media or what you mean by 'the media', but if you're going to tell me that pretty much any of the main political presenters/ columnists/ editors are sheep and stupid then I'm pretty surprised you could come to that conclusion.
In large institutions such as the mainstream media there will always be a cross-section. However, the point I was making was that from my own personal experience having worked in the newspaper industry you would likely be surprised at the level of the average intellect.
Seems you like Space Marines (from your sig?), so good on you. And seeing as you are being agreeable, I'll retract my sound byte because you're most probably right- it is a radial oversimplification.
I'm sure there are morons everywhere in every industry. I was referring to the fact that the majority of editorials I read in the Times, Independent or the Guardian and sometimes even the Mail tend to be well thought-out and interesting. Although at the moment the papers are unbearably biased.
And in terms of the shows we watch, we are hearing the opinion of the main top guys, not the lackey in the back room who's researching x topic or doing makeup. Andrew Marr, Andrew Neill, Jeremy Paxman and David Dimbleby are clever guys...with a lot of knowledge...in my opinion. And they do indeed have to focus on things which are really beside the main points, because they have to focus on easily graspable issues rather than important stuff. I remember recently Michael Portillo and Andrew Neill talking about how they wish they could be telling the country about the benefits of supply side economics rather than something like trying to make analogies about budget deficits all day.
On April 20 2010 22:15 KwarK wrote: However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long.
Your post was informative and interesting, even if extremely irritatingly laid out (computer paragraphs plz!). But the core message you have seems to be:
"I want the conservatives in power because I like to rotate control of the country after awhile"
Now forgive me if I'm wrong but don't you think there is any difference between the parties' social agendas? Even if, as you say, they may get ideas from each other and there may be a lot of similarity? Personally for me it makes quite a bit of difference which party gets elected not only because of the way I would like society to be run but also because it will specifically affect my life in the immediate future.
Also, aren't Labour 1 term short of equalling the previous Tory gov't?
Yes they are.
If there are single issues you care about then by all means let that influence your vote. However it's important to realise that Labour has kept very few of their manifesto promises over the years and I don't expect much better from the Conservatives. With that in mind the political driving force is likely to be, as Macmillan said, "events, dear boy, events". When both parties believe the same things and neither can be held to any promise they make now then the question of how they'll react to situations becomes somewhat moot.
For example, if you really like the School Start program (and personally I think that's definitely something Labour did right) then by all means vote Labour because the Conservatives wish to cut it. But on anything bigger than those single issues it just doesn't matter.
Well wouldn't you agree that individual competence becomes a large factor in our election? As you said there are a few policy decisions to separate the parties but in terms of their social agenda the parties are now very close. It's more about how you do things, rather than what you do. With that in mind, all I see from Gordon Brown is him ignoring the question, attempting to mislead the public with figures and just never admitting failure. I almost admire his determination to stay in office; if only it wasn't to the detriment of us all. But then again Cameron is a bit of a twat and Clegg's not much better either. The choice in the election is hardly inspiring, but as you said before our FPTP system is pretty much as good as it gets in politics.
On April 20 2010 22:36 KwarK wrote: On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it.
Also I think there is one domestic issue of significance, you can tell me whether you agree. The conservatives planning to cut the amount of MPs by 10% carries with it a lot of danger does it not? Then again, didn't Labour do something like rezoning constituencies to get more out of their core votes when they got into power in 1997? Also, the Labour plan to cut the House of Lords by half and to get rid of hereditary peers looks quite big. Whether they can or will deliver on it remains to be seen. I support any party looking to move towards an elected House of Lords. Personally I always liked the idea of it being a council of elders- a proportion being elected from science, journalism, business, arts, philosophy, universities etc by their peers; to counteract the populism of the House of Commons. So any party that moves away from hereditary peers makes sense to me. Even if, currently, some of the hereditary peers do a great job.
On April 20 2010 22:34 sc4k wrote: (@ Kwark) Well that's very agreeably explained and it just so happens that most of the ex politicians I've talked to had much the same tack.
Personally, I like moderate politics. But that's probably because I'm moderately persuaded. I enjoy deciding on the little differences, rejiggering the spending priorities and deciding how much dole money people get; but ultimately knowing we will still have British politics which I personally prefer the idea of than American politics or European politics. Where do you stand on the issue?
On the EU? It's undemocratic and wasteful with money and it knows it. And it's slowly addressing the problem. Things like CAP were legacies of WWII which were out of date and only the strength of the French vote kept them alive this long. But as the EU expands the powerbrokers become donators rather than beneficiaries and that is already trimming the budget considerably. France is fine with us paying for their lack of industrialisation but once the Balkans gets involved they're not the shittest country (I jest :p) in the EU anymore and the money goes elsewhere.
Regional development money is generally well spent in my opinion and there isn't all that much of it.
Issues like immigration, environment, power and trade are more sensibly dealt with on a European level because it does effect everyone. When Britain is importing power from French nuclear plants it makes sense to talk to them. The EU certainly has a lot of advantages in that regard, it is the most logical level upon which to make policy that effects all its members.
As for it being undemocratic, the problem is nobody gives a fuck. You have the Council of Europe made up of Government ministers from the individual countries which has control over how much power the rest of the EU has, the Parliament which has such low election turnouts that it shouldn't really be called democratic and the Commission which is appointed. The problem is it's difficult to resolve, giving the Parliament more power doesn't change the fact that the European Parliament elections are a joke and people mainly use them as a protest vote before voting for their true party in the real elections. There's no point voting Green for example in a general election because they'll never get a single MP, it's a vote wasted. But if you want to suggest to the party you actually support that there are a lot of people who care about green issues then you vote Green in an election that doesn't really matter. And while the electorate use the European Elections as a way of giving poll data about issues they care about to the main parties it is worthless as a democratic institution.
There are two issues. How to make the EU more democratic and whether to make it more democratic. The solution to the first is very difficult, you'd need to simultaneously give the EU Parliament more powers and more legitimacy and it can't have one without having the other first. The second issue is more interesting to me because at the moment the strength of the EU is dependent upon the strength of the politicians pushing it forwards. And at least they have been elected somewhere. The council of Europe is made up on democratically elected national ministers, albeit it is now too big to really decide anything. The Commission may be appointees but they are appointed due to national pressure from national Governments.
On April 20 2010 22:46 Klive5ive wrote: Well wouldn't you agree that individual competence becomes a large factor in our election? When you look at the Labour front bench and see Harriet Harman, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown, Miliband etc.. it hardly inspires confidence.
Alas, this is where my pokemon analogy would come into play . Regardless, I think the Miliband brothers and Ed Balls seem to be competent enough, I think Jack Straw is fine, Alan Johnson fine, Alastair Darling fine, Geoff Hoon iffy and corrupt, I personally like Shawn Woodward. Also like people like Peter Hain even though he isn't in the cabinet.
@ Kwark lol I was actually referring to the issue of what you think about British politics currently being fairly moderate and the choices between the parties not being as big as in the 70s. But your explanation of the EU is very interesting too. It's something that does not have enough of a profile here to be taken seriously enough, and you're damn right about the protest vote problem. I wonder if all the other countries had that problem.
On April 20 2010 22:36 KwarK wrote: On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it.
Also I think there is one domestic issue of significance, you can tell me whether you agree. The conservatives planning to cut the amount of MPs by 10% carries with it a lot of danger does it not? Then again, didn't Labour do something like rezoning constituencies to get more out of their core votes when they got into power in 1997? Also, the Labour plan to cut the House of Lords by half and to get rid of hereditary peers looks quite big. Whether they can or will deliver on it remains to be seen. I support any party looking to move towards an elected House of Lords. Personally I always liked the idea of it being a council of elders- a proportion being elected from science, journalism, business, arts, philosophy, universities etc by their peers; to counteract the populism of the House of Commons. So any party that moves away from hereditary peers makes sense to me. Even if, currently, some of the hereditary peers do a great job.
I very much like the idea of it containing science and business experts, university professors etc.. but I'm not sure about the plans. What I'm concerned about is if it becomes a mirror of the house of commons; containing people with political agendas to fulfill to get re-elected. The house of lords is a great buffer for some of the complete rubbish that gets through parliament, like this ridiculous digital rights bill of Mandelson. In a way I feel "if it aint broke, don't fix it".
On April 20 2010 22:46 Klive5ive wrote: Well wouldn't you agree that individual competence becomes a large factor in our election? When you look at the Labour front bench and see Harriet Harman, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown, Miliband etc.. it hardly inspires confidence.
Alas, this is where my pokemon analogy would come into play . Regardless, I think the Miliband brothers and Ed Balls seem to be competent enough, I think Jack Straw is fine, Alan Johnson fine, Alastair Darling fine, Geoff Hoon iffy and corrupt, I personally like Shawn Woodward. Also like people like Peter Hain even though he isn't in the cabinet.
If you want to write the post and PM it to me I'll gladly add it to the OP xD I'm particularly interested in what Pokemon you chose for Mandelson.
On April 20 2010 22:36 KwarK wrote: On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it.
Also I think there is one domestic issue of significance, you can tell me whether you agree. The conservatives planning to cut the amount of MPs by 10% carries with it a lot of danger does it not? Then again, didn't Labour do something like rezoning constituencies to get more out of their core votes when they got into power in 1997? Also, the Labour plan to cut the House of Lords by half and to get rid of hereditary peers looks quite big. Whether they can or will deliver on it remains to be seen. I support any party looking to move towards an elected House of Lords. Personally I always liked the idea of it being a council of elders- a proportion being elected from science, journalism, business, arts, philosophy, universities etc by their peers; to counteract the populism of the House of Commons. So any party that moves away from hereditary peers makes sense to me. Even if, currently, some of the hereditary peers do a great job.
Not only does the Labour plan to reform the House of Lords look big, it looked bigger in 1997 when they first suggested it. Then in 1999 when they commissioned the Wakeham report into House of Lords reform. Then in 2003 when they had a direct vote on the issue and failed to reach any conclusion (in the Commons, the Lords voted to stay appointed). In 2007 they voted again and decided to scrap hereditaries. The vast majority of hereditaries are now gone and the remaining ones had to justify their stay on the grounds of sufficient expertise to be worthy of appointing to the job if they hadn't inheritted it. And their children will not inherit it, the hereditary House of Lords is gone, there are just a few survivors from the last generation.
Elected and a council of elders are mutually exclusive. At present the House of Lords is utterly independent of politics because they cannot be removed. Once you add elections you turn these elders, many of whom are still busy within their own fields, into politicians. They need to campaign, network and finance themselves. That undermines the entire point of the House of Lords in my opinion. At the moment if you're really good at your job and know the subject inside out you can be made a Lord. That doesn't give you the power to write legislation but gives you the option of weighing in on legislation written by someone less well informed than you. It adds a layer of expertise, scrutiny and debate that would not otherwise be there. You simply cannot politicise that and retain the benefits, the advantage is that Lords are not professional politicians and are not subject to the party whip in any real way.
I was referring to the fact that the majority of editorials I read in the Times, Independent or the Guardian and sometimes even the Mail tend to be well thought-out and interesting.
Well no offence I think we are just going to have to disagree on that.
And in terms of the shows we watch, we are hearing the opinion of the main top guys, not the lackey in the back room who's researching x topic or doing makeup. Andrew Marr, Andrew Neill, Jeremy Paxman and David Dimbleby are clever guys...with a lot of knowledge...in my opinion.
I don't doubt it. If you focus at the very top end of what might be called the agenda-setting media (the BBC's flagship news and current affairs, the major national newspapers) you'll undoubtedly find a lot of intellectually capable people. The issues I have with the media at that level are not intellectual but rather ideological, and structural rather than based on particular personalities. But anyway, this is likely to take us considerably off topic.
Incidentally, I interviewed Michael Portillo years ago, when he was a minister in the Major government, and he is quite sharp, although I found him repulsive at the time. He seems a much more agreeable chap now he is no longer an MP. Also, he is much shorter than you'd think.
Klive, I remember being told the exact same thing by a very well-respected and rich lawyer over dinner and it was an interesting conversation. The House of Lords should not get any more substantial power, I'll agree on that. I'm in favour of a little tweaking here and there, and I just get a bad taste in my mouth from hereditary peerages, but also I get a worse taste in my mouth from cash for peerages etc!
And the digital rights bill, god. Don't get me started. You know something like 6 Tory MPs turned up for that vote :/. Sometimes I get the feeling that Mandelson does things because he can.
On April 20 2010 22:59 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Incidentally, I interviewed Michael Portillo years ago, when he was a minister in the Major government, and he is quite sharp, although I found him repulsive at the time. He seems a much more agreeable chap now he is no longer an MP. Also, he is much shorter than you'd think.
On April 20 2010 22:49 KwarK wrote: The problem is it's difficult to resolve, giving the Parliament more power doesn't change the fact that the European Parliament elections are a joke and people mainly use them as a protest vote before voting for their true party in the real elections.
Beg to differ here. While the Parliament itself is a joke, the elections are more representative, modulo the low turnouts. The European Parliament (as well as the devolved celtic parliaments) use a more democratic proportional representation system, so what happens is that people vote for the parties they want to vote for (because they stand a chance of putting one of their candidates in power). With the Westminister first-past-the-post system, voting for a party that isn't one of the two front runners (or in a safe seat, any vote at all, more or less) is a wasted vote. The reason people aren't voting for UKIP in Westminister because UKIP supporters aren't all bunched up in the same constituency, and are therefore unelectable (and the voters aren't too dumb to notice this, despite what people might say about them), not because UKIP is a secondary protest party.
I saw it happen with the Scottish Parliament elections. For the first elections in 1999, the vast bulk of the population voted for the same parties as in Westminister, but the system caught those few who did something different and one Green, one Socialist and an independent were elected. Four years later, the electorate cottoned on that those guys were electable, a whopping fifteen candidates from outwith the big four Scottish parties were elected.
If the liberal vote hits 30% in this election, we're going to see this phenomenon bigstyle, where a party without a solid geographic base (outwith a few strange places like Cornwall and some Scottish Islands) is vastly underrepresented iin Parliament, and could easily end up with far less seats than a party with fewer votes.
On April 20 2010 22:49 KwarK wrote: The problem is it's difficult to resolve, giving the Parliament more power doesn't change the fact that the European Parliament elections are a joke and people mainly use them as a protest vote before voting for their true party in the real elections.
Beg to differ here. While the Parliament itself is a joke, the elections are more representative, modulo the low turnouts. The European Parliament (as well as the devolved celtic parliaments) use a more democratic proportional representation system, so what happens is that people vote for the parties they want to vote for (because they stand a chance of putting one of their candidates in power). With the Westminister first-past-the-post system, voting for a party that isn't one of the two front runners (or in a safe seat, any vote at all, more or less) is a wasted vote. The reason people aren't voting for UKIP in Westminister because UKIP supporters aren't all bunched up in the same constituency, and are therefore unelectable (and the voters aren't too dumb to notice this, despite what people might say about them), not because UKIP is a secondary protest party.
I saw it happen with the Scottish Parliament elections. For the first elections in 1999, the vast bulk of the population voted for the same parties as in Westminister, but the system caught those few who did something different and one Green, one Socialist and an independent were elected. Four years later, the electorate cottoned on that those guys were electable, a whopping fifteen candidates from outwith the big four Scottish parties were elected.
If the liberal vote hits 30% in this election, we're going to see this phenomenon bigstyle, where a party without a solid geographic base (outwith a few strange places like Cornwall and some Scottish Islands) is vastly underrepresented iin Parliament, and could easily end up with far less seats than a party with fewer votes.
I honestly don't think the average voter could even identify that EU elections use the regional list system, let alone explain it. In fact, I doubt they know general elections use FPTP. You give them too much credit for being sensible with their vote. As for the Lib Dems getting fucked over by FPTP, check out 1983.
"go back to your constituencies and prepare for government." David Steel, leader of the Liberal SDP alliance. 1983
I honestly don't think the average voter could even identify that EU elections use the regional list system, let alone explain it. In fact, I doubt they know general elections use FPTP. You give them too much credit for being sensible with their vote.
Then explain how Scottish people vote more for strange wee parties when they have a proportional representation system? Why do British people vote more for those itty bitty weird parties in the Euro elections? The Scottish elections matter more than Westminister up here, while the European elections matter less. The one commonality is that they use proportional systems and Westminister doesn't.
Perhaps the random voter in the street doesn't know or care about the precise technicalities of the single transferable dual-alternative regional runoff system or whatever (I know I don't), but they know roughly the difference between 'first past the post' and 'proportional representation'.
As for the Lib Dems getting fucked over by FPTP, check out 1983.
Heh, 1983 was in my mind when I was writing my post, and I'd have brought it up if you'd made an issue of it.
Come to think of it, if you were around and paying attention in 1983 (not your fault I know - I blame your parents), you'd know that there was a huge deal made over a tactical voting campaign in the Bermondsey by-election that year (one of the candidates was Peter Tatchell, who was Loony Left Tabloid BogeyMan #4 at the time, after Benn, Scargill and Livingstone), and tactical voting happens precisely because voters know all about the ramifications of the FPTP system, contrary to what you said above. Voters aren't usually as stupid as the people who talk about them like to pretend...
If you watched the Lib Dem press conference the day before their manifesto release and also the day they released it, you will realise that they got killed on the questions. At the same time, I must say that the reporters seem to be a lot smarter (or they simply want to kill the Lib Dem) compare to those who sit at Labour/Conservatives.
edit: btw, I didn't read like all 4 page, I just decide to throw in a random comment
I think the biggest pro of the FPTP system is that each minister MUST get individually re-elected each time. It has made anyone who fiddled their expenses un-electable, whilst under the STV-Droop Quota the Liberals propose or any other PR system you don't get direct control over who is in parliament. It's good that you mention Portillo because if it hadn't been for FPTP he would have undoubtably retained a parliament seat back in 97. Then you have Ed Balls this time around; struggling for his seat. It makes each politician individually acountable.
I went from not caring too much about politics, being mainly of the opinion that elections are designed to create the illusion of change whilst things carry on almost as normal just with another party in power.
I still think that but going to vote for Nicky Clegg as he performed well in the debate and from the policies I have sinced looked at the Lib Dem party are looking pretty good.
I honestly don't think the average voter could even identify that EU elections use the regional list system, let alone explain it. In fact, I doubt they know general elections use FPTP. You give them too much credit for being sensible with their vote.
Then explain how Scottish people vote more for strange wee parties when they have a proportional representation system? Why do British people vote more for those itty bitty weird parties in the Euro elections? The Scottish elections matter more than Westminister up here, while the European elections matter less. The one commonality is that they use proportional systems and Westminister doesn't.
Perhaps the random voter in the street doesn't know or care about the precise technicalities of the single transferable dual-alternative regional runoff system or whatever (I know I don't), but they know roughly the difference between 'first past the post' and 'proportional representation'.
As for the Lib Dems getting fucked over by FPTP, check out 1983.
Heh, 1983 was in my mind when I was writing my post, and I'd have brought it up if you'd made an issue of it.
Come to think of it, if you were around and paying attention in 1983 (not your fault I know - I blame your parents), you'd know that there was a huge deal made over a tactical voting campaign in the Bermondsey by-election that year (one of the candidates was Peter Tatchell, who was Loony Left Tabloid BogeyMan #4 at the time, after Benn, Scargill and Livingstone), and tactical voting happens precisely because voters know all about the ramifications of the FPTP system, contrary to what you said above. Voters aren't usually as stupid as the people who talk about them like to pretend...
You make a good point but Scotland never had the dual party dominance England did. Third parties have been more viable historically in Scotland because of the SNP. Plus with just 2,000,000 active voters it isn't really a fair comparison with England. I don't believe your argument is wrong, it could well be right, but there are problems with it.
The knowledge of the man on the street is something I have very little faith in when the Mail is the most popular broadsheet and the Sun is bigger than all the non mail broadsheets (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, FT) combined. People don't know and they don't care. Half of them don't even vote.
On April 20 2010 23:54 XeliN wrote: I went from not caring too much about politics, being mainly of the opinion that elections are designed to create the illusion of change whilst things carry on almost as normal just with another party in power.
I still think that but going to vote for Nicky Clegg as he performed well in the debate and from the policies I have sinced looked at the Lib Dem party are looking pretty good.
You kids don't remember 97 do you. No wonder you don't believe in elections when you've grown up under Labour.
On April 20 2010 23:47 Klive5ive wrote: I think the biggest pro of the FPTP system is that each minister MUST get individually re-elected each time. It has made anyone who fiddled their expenses un-electable, whilst under the STV-Droop Quota the Liberals propose or any other PR system you don't get direct control over who is in parliament. It's good that you mention Portillo because if it hadn't been for FPTP he would have undoubtably retained a parliament seat back in 97. Then you have Ed Balls this time around; struggling for his seat. It makes each politician individually acountable.
Lose seat -> get made Lord -> get made minister -> continue as before, only less accountable Look at Mandy.
I skimmed past the first four pages looking to see if anyone else brought this up, and I did not see anything. So I have to ask this. How the hell nearly 60 years after the invention of TV. Has the UK never had a live TV debate? I would think at some point over the years people would have bitched enough to force the politicians to host a live TV debate every year.
On April 21 2010 00:10 InToTheWannaB wrote: I skimmed past the first four pages looking to see if anyone else brought this up, and I did not see anything. So I have to ask this. How the hell nearly 60 years after the invention of TV. Has the UK never had a live TV debate? I would think at some point over the years people would have bitched enough to force the politicians to host a live TV debate every year.
We've had live debates before. Just nothing official before an election organised in this fashion.
Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
You make a good point but Scotland never had the dual party dominance England did. Third parties have been more viable historically in Scotland because of the SNP.
Are you joking? If Scottish politics didn't have a dual party dominance, it was because it was overwhelmingly a one-party (Labour) nation for years on end, and that was never, ever, challenged until the Scottish Parliament came along.
Under FPTP (the only way of doing electoral politics until 1999), Labour has held an absolute majority of Scottish seats in Westminister since forever ago, and still does, and no other party has come close. The SNP currently has 7 seats at Westminister (the most it has ever had is 11, in 1974, when there were something like 72 seats in total), yet it's the largest party in the Scottish Parliament now.
The knowledge of the man on the street is something I have very little faith in when the Mail is the most popular broadsheet and the Sun is bigger than all the non mail broadsheets (Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, FT) combined. People don't know and they don't care. Half of them don't even vote.
I don't vote, and I don't consider myself to be ill-informed or apathetic. (I do make at least as much effort as the median voter, in that I do turn up on polling day and spoil that ballot paper in protest). I don't believe anybody's vote is statistically likely to change anything, even in a marginal seat(I'm in an ultra-safe Lib Dem seat anyways, making it a statistical impossibility), and even if I did, a constituency MP has little or no power to change anything. Even changing governments doesn't do much - you've said yourself about how all three parties have an ideological consensus these days - meaning that the electable politicians basically agree on everything, and that what we're left with, in an election, is a Mickey-Mouse choice of picking which ones get to do what they're told - by the businses classes, or the civil service, or the European bureaucrats, or <insert your favoured shady conspirators here> - for another four years.
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
Spoiling your ballot is still a vote, it's a political expression and given the irrelevance of voting, no worse than any other. I have no problem with ballot spoilers.
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
:: rollseyes ::
Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere.
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
:: rollseyes ::
Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere.
Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint. Obviously you don't need to tell me the obvious:
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
:: rollseyes ::
Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere.
Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint.
On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote: I bet if you had the LPUK
I was under the assumption you thought the debate should be between relevant people. If we're just throwing anyone in there for fun then I'd go for a showdown between Mike Tyson and Sylvester Stallone as Rambo.
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
:: rollseyes ::
Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere.
Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint.
On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote: I bet if you had the LPUK
I was under the assumption you thought the debate should be between relevant people. If we're just throwing anyone in there for fun then I'd go for a showdown between Mike Tyson and Sylvester Stallone as Rambo.
Do you just ramble from one strawman mischaracterization to the next, with intent, or is it just the natural character of KwarK?
Yes, if Classical Liberalism IE Libertarianism had a voice in a debate it would certainly elevate the discourse and dialogue. Have to look no further than the 2007 GOP debates. I never even hinted that the LPUK was any sort of force in British Politics. And your insinuation that Classical Liberalism is as far fetched as Jedi's, Rambo, Tyson, ad absurdum is hilarious, not for the fact that it is so out-landish, but just goes to show if you are any indication of the average Brit, you guys are royally fucked.
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
Be careful on that assessment. Of course debates don't really matter when those engaged in debate pretty much agree on 98% of the items. When you have a diverse philosophical divide and a principled Statesman debates are awesome (See: Ron Paul).
I bet if you had the LPUK in that debate and they brought up abolishing the Income Tax that would be a healthy debate, for example. (In other words, debates are a great way to influence and elevate the dialogue and policy.) Aren't people tired of freaking wedge issues?
And I bet if we had some other irrelevant loonies in there there would be a lot of healthy debate. We could bring in some Islamic Supremacists and put them with Zionists and see what would happen. Maybe get some PETA nutjobs in there for a laugh too. But I think it's probably better that we keep politics between people who aren't complete whackos. LPUK has no base of support, no members of Parliament, the Jedi have more right to be there. They are not politicians. Politicians are people who practice politics, not people who stay at home and wish they didn't believe in some outmoded system that everyone else mocked or ignored.
:: rollseyes ::
Even if you agree with their views you cannot believe they are a force in British politics. You'd make more sense if you argued that Obama should be able to speak up for the Democrats at the debate, he'd have more chance of winning a seat in the general election. Libertarians have absolutely nothing to do with British politics and this topic is about British politics, if you wish to talk about them, take it elsewhere.
Please show me where I even remotely expressed this viewpoint.
On April 21 2010 00:19 DexterHGTourney wrote: I bet if you had the LPUK
I was under the assumption you thought the debate should be between relevant people. If we're just throwing anyone in there for fun then I'd go for a showdown between Mike Tyson and Sylvester Stallone as Rambo.
Do you just ramble from one strawman mischaracterization to the next, with intent, or is it just the natural character of KwarK?
Yes, if Classical Liberalism IE Libertarianism had a voice in a debate it would certainly elevate the discourse and dialogue. Have to look no further than the 2007 GOP debates. I never even hinted that the LPUK was any sort of force in British Politics. And your insinuation that Classical Liberalism is as far fetched as Jedi's, Rambo, Tyson, ad absurdum is hilarious, not for the fact that it is so out-landish, but just goes to show if you are any indication of the average Brit, you guys are royally fucked.
Enjoy your CCTV :p
Actually census results indicate that there are almost 400,000 Jedi living in Britain compared to 1000 or so Libertarians. So my comparison to the Jedi was not only perfectly valid but goes to show how utterly irrelevant Libertarianism is. You suggested bringing Libertarians into the debate. I pointed out they were irrelevant. You said it didn't matter if they were irrelevant, it'd still be entertaining. I pointed out that if you want entertainment rather than political debate then you might as well turn the entire thing into a fight. You bitched some.
Political debate should be between politicians. LPUK has no politicians in it. Therefore they have no place in a political debate.
The entertainment argument doesn't make any sense.
Personally i think its a true but sad reflection on British society that can make a party jump 10% in the polls after a single debate with the leader on certain issues. When you actually look at the liberal policies they are a bit.. lacking to say the least:
- On Immigration and race issues: "name blanking" policy on job applications to cut discrimination, i mean this is just stupid, this serves no purpose what so ever and will not stop discrimination, businesses discriminate by definition, thats what interviews are for, they judge your character, whether fairly or not, and add that as weight on top of your qualifications to determine whether you got the job, this policy would only make sense if employers only hired on the basis of qualifications.
- On Defense: Cutting Trident and setting up a Parliament with semi-Tabliban control, in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense, also the alternatives they talk about would surely cost money, while trident is a case of renewing it, the actual program is already set up and partly paid for, so what grantee is there that the alternative would be any cheaper? and effective? And as for setting up a Tabilan government is just ludicrous, i'm not saying i support the war in Afghanistan but to use our power to put in a Taliban government is just insane! How is this a sensible solution, we should finish what we started and at least put in a democratic non Muslim extremist government, although i expect it would be a weak one and there will be fighting in Afghanistan long after we've withdrawn troops.
- On Health: introduce "patient contracts" specifying what patients can expect from NHS, this is just adding red tape and making it worse for doctors to do their job, imagine what kind of power this could give to those who want to take their grief out on doctors by suing them, which is what this would do from what i understand (correct me if im wrong). extend access to end-of-life services and hospices, well personally i don't agree with this, but on a non personal level it's still a slippery slope, and i think a lot of the general public would disagree with this.
- On Education: scrap university tuition fees over six years, don't think this is really sensible, already too many people going to university for no reason and getting themselves in debt, imagine if they could put that debt on tax payers(i know we used to have this system but it's just unnecessary government spending)
- On Green energy: Aim for a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases emissions by 2020, rising to 100% by 2050, oppose new nuclear power plants. WHAT?!?!? Can someone explain to me how these two policies are possible unless we discover the key to achievable and affordable fusion energy buy 2050?
Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe? and there EU policy is basically to bend over backwards to Europe and eventually change to the euro, i don't really agree with this either, we should use our political power to get more out of Europe like France has and like Margret thatcher did. As for the euro, meh i guess it could be good, i don't know enough about economics to make a judgment on what effect this would have so.
I actually like some of their other polices but some of the ones i mentioned above are to bad IMO for me to seriously consider voting for them.
I'd like to see a reform that would keep FPTP but also a second vote for some sort of president/party/prime-minster, who would have x amount of votes in the house of commons, to basically reduce the chance of getting a hung parliament and allow people to vote for their local mp they like and the party they like. I mean where i live i like the lib dem MP we have and want to vote for him, but i want to vote for the conservatives as a party, despite the fact i don't like the local conservative mp. Also i don't like the idea of an elected house of lords, just removes the point, as i saw it anyways, of the house of lords, which is to put a non politically charged veto onto government.
Personally i hate most of the labour front bench + Mandelson with a passion, they are mostly morons, while some of the conservatives like Kenith Clark and William Hague are pretty intelligent, although im not a massive fan of Cameron and Theresa May. Unfortunately most people don't vote on the competence of the current party, most people vote on prejudices, like there are some Scottish and inner city northerners will never vote tory because Thatcher "took all our jerbs" or they see them as the party for the "rich snobs". And there will be upper-middle class that will never vote labour because their parents always voted tory and then lib dems will always get the populist/student vote.
I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that.
What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here.
If only you knew the amount of time I have spend playing a Hearts of Iron 2\3 game as Germany, utterly refusing to allow the UK to go unchallenged in the Atlantic. I've got to scrape by on my airforce and army to have enough industrial power left over to build an ahistoric number of battleships? IM GOING TO DO IT. Hitler was a damn fool for stopping at two partially useless Bismarcks.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that.
What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
Our nuclear arsenal is incredibly small, tiny far beyond what the US and Russia are proposing cutting back to. Saying "in this climate we don't need 10, look, the US is cutting back to 1000" doesn't entirely follow. That said, it has no military purpose and as long as we're in NATO it will not. But times change and it'd be shit to have to restart a nuclear project from scratch. It's a waste of money but I've seen worse wastes and I expect the running costs are considerably lower than the cost of stopping it then restarting it a decade down the line.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that.
What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
I didn't say they were in more need than the US and Russia. And the treaty doesn't get rid of nuclear arms totally, your putting it out of context. The point of the US Russia disarmament was that they have massive nuclear stock piles from the cold war designed to be used on each other, which since the cold war is basically over aren't needed any more, it is nothing to do with totally getting rid of all nuclear deterrents for protection against Iran and N.Korea which is essentially what Trident is for.
I like to think Blair had a "yes minister" moment when he walked into 10 downing street.
Blair: "right then, first things first lets cancel trident!" Minister: "ummm, sorry to have to tell you this but Trident was canceled 20 years ago" Blair: "What?!" Minister: "yeah, we've been spending the money on the Army for years, no-one will ever know" Blair: "Dam, I guess I'll have to tell the public" Minister: "Don't be daft it's essentially a giant bluff anyway. An invisible sub we were never going to use, it's as useful now as it ever was!"
On April 21 2010 03:15 Klive5ive wrote: I like to think Blair had a "yes minister" moment when he walked into 10 downing street.
Blair: "right then, first things first lets cancel trident!" Minister: "ummm, sorry to have to tell you this but Trident was canceled 20 years ago" Blair: "What?!" Minister: "yeah, we've been spending the money on the Army for years, no-one will ever know" Blair: "Dam, I guess I'll have to tell the public" Minister: "Don't be daft it's essentially a giant bluff anyway. An invisible sub we were never going to use, it's as useful now as it ever was!"
First thought: Brilliant, but they'd have to make sure nobody ever found out. Second thought: My God...
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that.
What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
Our nuclear arsenal is incredibly small, tiny far beyond what the US and Russia are proposing cutting back to. Saying "in this climate we don't need 10, look, the US is cutting back to 1000" doesn't entirely follow. That said, it has no military purpose and as long as we're in NATO it will not. But times change and it'd be shit to have to restart a nuclear project from scratch. It's a waste of money but I've seen worse wastes and I expect the running costs are considerably lower than the cost of stopping it then restarting it a decade down the line.
In this climate no country needs ANY nuclear weapons as far as I'm concerned. If this (or any) country ever needs to worry about using their nuclear weapons then I won't be thinking about the cost in terms of GBP. The UK/US and Russia being in possession of nuclear weapons is only an encouragement for others to do the same, no country should have them and the sooner that everyone signs a complete non-proliferation treaty the better, but for now I'll be happy just to get rid of trident.
Edit: If you really think that nuclear weapons are a 'protection system', you're wrong. Regardless, it's debatable whether Iran even has nuclear weapons and doubtful that any nuclear missile they could possess could even reach as far as the United Kingdom. North Korean missiles would only be able to strike US soil in Alaska, they have such short range. I'd say Great Britain is pretty safe from the worlds boogymen right now.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
Yeah, I don't see how someone can make a statement like "in the current climate i really don't see how we can afford to get rid of anti-nuclear defense" when only a few weeks ago the United States and Russia signed a treaty designed specifically to do that.
What makes the UK more in need of nuclear arms than Russia and the U.S.? It's a complete waste of money.
Our nuclear arsenal is incredibly small, tiny far beyond what the US and Russia are proposing cutting back to. Saying "in this climate we don't need 10, look, the US is cutting back to 1000" doesn't entirely follow. That said, it has no military purpose and as long as we're in NATO it will not. But times change and it'd be shit to have to restart a nuclear project from scratch. It's a waste of money but I've seen worse wastes and I expect the running costs are considerably lower than the cost of stopping it then restarting it a decade down the line.
In this climate no country needs ANY nuclear weapons as far as I'm concerned. If this (or any) country ever needs to worry about using their nuclear weapons then I won't be thinking about the cost in terms of GBP. The UK/US and Russia being in possession of nuclear weapons is only an encouragement for others to do the same, no country should have them and the sooner that everyone signs a complete non-proliferation treaty the better, but for now I'll be happy just to get rid of trident.
The cat is out of the bag. Any country that subsequently got them in secret would be able to bully the others, stopping them from restarting their own nuclear programs with the threat of force. For that reason no country would disarm. They'd just keep their programs secret but everyone would know about it and be suspicious that every other country was about to declare theirs and try something. Public and accountable is the best way. They can't be uninvented and at least they serve as a cap on major wars.
Well even if it has warped my eyes, I want Labour to stay in power and intend to vote tactically Lib Dem to at least attempt to make my constituency less Conservative than it already is. It's a shame really though that all my local MPs suck
Also, about the live TV debate, I'm not too keen on this, it was quite boring, they all said samey stuff and we're electing a whole party not some sort of President
I watched the first debate and was just disgusted. Right from the start all three were trying to out right wing each other on immigration. I'm a member of the labour party but i think i'll vote green.
Still an exciting election though, if the polls hold then it's not hard to see some sort of PR getting adopted. Maybe next election my vote can be worth a damn
I've been out so I'm just going to do a few replies, seeing as I'm interested here and there are some people whose views I'd like to examine for my own voting reasons (editing them in):
On April 20 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote: The vast majority of hereditaries are now gone and the remaining ones had to justify their stay on the grounds of sufficient expertise to be worthy of appointing to the job if they hadn't inheritted it. And their children will not inherit it, the hereditary House of Lords is gone, there are just a few survivors from the last generation.
Was your point in the first part of this post (page 4 top) to basically express an opinion that Labour will fail to deliver on this?
On April 20 2010 22:58 KwarK wrote: Elected and a council of elders are mutually exclusive. At present the House of Lords is utterly independent of politics because they cannot be removed. Once you add elections you turn these elders, many of whom are still busy within their own fields, into politicians. They need to campaign, network and finance themselves. That undermines the entire point of the House of Lords in my opinion.
I can see how what you're saying makes sense, I too saw it as a major stumbling block. But isn't it the party in power who gets to appoint lords? And the cash for peerages scheme, didn't that show that the Lords is already mired in politics?
What if only accredited scientists were polled when voting scientists into the HoL, University Dons polled for their like, historians (let's be inclusive ) for their like etc? You still think it wouldn't be able to avoid greased palms and campaigning? Does being a lord give one that much power and money? Is that changeable?
On April 21 2010 00:15 XeliN wrote: Live debates don't really achieve much, they show who is the better rhetorician sure but in terms of actual policies, or the competency of any of the parties.I mean take this first debate as an example, I know at the back of my mind how exceptionally useless they are and not a good basis to make a political descision yet I'm still going to vote for the guy who I felt came across better in it based on little to nothing other than that. Typing this out is almost making me change my mind..
I disagree quite a lot here: I think having the party leaders confront each other's policies and battle them with their own (god damn I'm missing out SO many pokemon analogies D is healthy for the public to get discussing policies and such. It's not very hardcore debate though and it's still full of too much sound-byte, coached politics. I also think it's very important that everyone realises we are not supposed to vote for leaders first, rather for parties first, cabinet second and leaders third.
On April 21 2010 00:53 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: Let's try and keep this civil.
I'd like to echo this point. This thread should be informative and civil. If we care about our country then we should maintain a certain standard of decorum and also pay respects to people who clearly know more about the subjects than us. But also remember that if someone knows more than you, your analysis may still be very valid and different; so raise questions with the purpose of firming up your personal voting decision.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here.
I was under the impression that some of our navy had to be given to the French because of some EU resolution. Any veracity there? Also, what's the deal with fishing zones, has the EU given some of ours to France?
PS. You got any good sources for a nice, brief history of politics in the UK? I've been learning about Wilson, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair etc but I'd like to know a little more detail BUT not too much!
PS. In the Daily Politics foreign policy debate, the spokesperson for foreign affairs in the Lib Dems said he isn't opposed to nuclear deterrent he just thinks that Trident is outdated and could be replaced with something cheaper and more relevant. Surely all we really need is the most minimal we can get.
I really like the format of the debate, it really strives to stir the pot and the issues. I'm not one to follow UK politics but the quick wit was certainly an interesting hour and a half.
On April 21 2010 02:55 XeliN wrote: I can't see one justifiable reason for a trident misile defence system, in the event of attack we would, or I do not think we should, retaliate with nuclear weapons, the fact we have them deters absolutely nothing and generally they are a massive waste of money.
The French currently have a bigger and better fleet than us and you want to scrap some more subs? Dying inside here.
I was under the impression that some of our navy had to be given to the French because of some EU resolution. Any veracity there? Also, what's the deal with fishing zones, has the EU given some of ours to France?
As far as I know that's total nonsense. They have a bigger navy because Britain has realised that the navy is becoming obsolete as a weapon and is spending money in other areas. It's depressing only because historically we're a naval power.
As for the cash for honours scandal, unavoidable but I imagine given the scandal and the media attention it'll be harder for someone to try it again. I still think an appointed House of Lords is the best way.
Edit: As for sources, I'm afraid not. I did A-levels in Politics and History which together gave me a grounding in the post war situation in Britain but those text books were fairly hard going. I'm also about four years out of date now.
My other question was you know can you just explain how Lords are appointed. Is it entirely down to the party in power and do they have to justify their appointments to the House of Commons, Lords or any independent body?
On April 21 2010 06:02 sc4k wrote: My other question was you know can you just explain how Lords are appointed. Is it entirely down to the party in power and do they have to justify their appointments to the House of Commons, Lords or any independent body?
It comes under Royal Prerogative which are the powers of the monarch wielded by the PM. However in 2000 the House of Lords Appointments Commission was created as one of the recommendations regarding House of Lords reform. It's purpose is basically to ensure transparancy and prevent partisan placements although for obvious reasons they allow a degree of partisan leeway. It was the objections of the Commission that led to the cash for peerages scandal.
I don't Really think anyone is arguing that Britain or America are better than one another, or whether our military spending is ridiculous...Can we keep talking about the election? It's Actually pretty interesting y'know.
On April 21 2010 06:12 Piy wrote: "You shut up. No you shut up. No you..."
I don't Really think anyone is arguing that Britain or America are better than one another, or whether our military spending is ridiculous...Can we keep talking about the election? It's Actually pretty interesting y'know.
Who are you replying to? :S As far as I can tell we're pretty much on topic at the moment.
On April 21 2010 06:12 Piy wrote: "You shut up. No you shut up. No you..."
I don't Really think anyone is arguing that Britain or America are better than one another, or whether our military spending is ridiculous...Can we keep talking about the election? It's Actually pretty interesting y'know.
Who are you replying to? :S As far as I can tell we're pretty much on topic at the moment.
Meh, I get uppity in political discussions anyways, but theres been about 2 pages of people talking about missile shields :S
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
I'd like to contest that, but I couldn't do it without the perpetual nagging doubt that you're right.
Reading their manifesto. Oh my god. Apparently I'm watching it. With library music in the background...
Edit: It does seem to me that the objection 'the Lib Dems have never been gov't so they haven't enough experience' isn't very fair. I like the Lib Dems' frontline politicians and I think some might be competent with extra-political experience, but there looks to be a shallowness to the roster, so to speak. It would be nice if there could be a main manifesto points section in the OP?
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
Just watching the debate video now. I don't know all that much about UK politics specifically, but it really is fascinating to watch the Liberal leader take full advantage of the two party paradigm the other two have themselves locked into.
Op Klive, put this summary of the Lib Dems' manifesto in the OP if you will. It's from the Independent so we can trust it will be independent. Even though of late it has seemed slightly biased towards the Libs.
* Cutting taxes for millions of working people by increasing the income tax threshold to £10,000, paid for by tackling tax avoidance and by a "mansion tax" of 1% on properties worth over £2 million.
* Setting a £400 pay rise cap for all public sector workers, initially for two years, ensuring that the lowest paid are eligible for the biggest percentage rise.
* Scrapping ID cards and the next generation of biometric passports, and removing innocent people from the DNA database.
* Reforming prisons by reducing the number of short-term prison sentences. There would be a "presumption against" jail terms of less than six months, with "rigorously enforced" community sentences favoured.
* Making prisoners work and contribute from their prison wages to a compensation fund for victims.
* Immediately restoring the link between the basic state pension and earnings and giving people more flexibility by allowing them to access part of their personal pension fund early.
* No like-for-like replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent. The Eurofighter Tranche 3B would be cancelled and there would be a full defence review to establish Britain's future security.
* Introducing a banking levy so that banks pay back taxpayer support, until they can be split up in order to insulate retail banking from investment risks.
* Increasing funding for the most disadvantaged pupils, around one million children, by investing £2.5 billion in a "pupil premium". Headteachers would be free to spend this on cutting class sizes, attracting the best teachers or offering extra one-to-one tuition.
* Scrapping "unfair" university tuition fees for all students taking their first degree, including those studying part-time.
* Cutting the size of the Department of Health in half and abolishing unnecessary quangos.
* Giving a pay rise to the lower ranks of the Armed Forces so their pay is brought into line with the starting salary of the emergency services.
* Getting 3,000 more police on the beat and reducing time-wasting bureaucracy at police stations.
* In Parliament, introducing a "single transferable vote" system of proportional representation, where candidates are ranked in order of preference, and reducing the number of MPs by 150.
* Lowering the voting age to 16 and bringing in a recall system to sack MPs who have broken the rules, allowing constituents to force a by-election in cases of "serious wrongdoing".
* Capping political donations at £10,000 and limiting election spending; replacing the House of Lords with a fully-elected chamber with "considerably fewer members".
The aggressive nature of it (much like their parliment) is always intense to watch. I love how the person who ran the debate just screamed in names when he wanted that person to speak.
Cameron sounded like ass to me. I agree Clegg came out on top.
* Secure the recovery by supporting the economy and halving the deficit by 2014 through growth, fair taxes and cuts to lower priority spending.
* Will not raise basic, higher and new top rates of tax in the next Parliament.
* No extension of VAT on food, children's clothes, books, newspapers and public transport fares.
* Realise stakes in publicly-controlled banks, introduce a global levy and reform banking rules.
* Create UK Finance for Growth, bringing £4 billion together to provide capital for growing businesses.
* Up to 70,000 advanced apprenticeships a year and Skills Accounts for workers to upgrade their skills.
* Create one million skilled jobs and modernise infrastructure with high speed rail, a green investment bank and broadband access for all.
* No stamp duty for first-time buyers on all house purchases below £250,000 for two years, paid for by a 5% rate on homes worth more than £1 million.
* Require a super-majority of two-thirds of shareholders in corporate takeovers.
* Job or training place for young people out of work for six months but benefits cut at ten months if they refuse a place. Guarantee of work for anyone unemployed for more than two years.
* National Minimum Wage to rise in line with average earnings.
* Ensure excellence is spread across public services with 1,000 schools to become part of high standard accredited schools groups, every hospital a Foundation Trust and underperforming police forces or borough commanders replaced or taken over.
* Right to recall MPs, referendum on the alternative vote for the Commons, referendum on a democratic second chamber, free vote in Parliament on reducing the voting age to 16.
* Help for parents to balance work and family life, with a "Father's Month" of flexible paid leave.
* A new Toddler Tax Credit of £4 a week from 2012 to all parents of young children.
* National Care Service to ensure free care in the home for those with the greatest care needs, cap on the costs of residential care.
* Re-establish the link between the Basic State Pension and earnings from 2012.
* An expansion of free nursery places for two-year-olds and 15 hours a week of flexible, free nursery education for three and four-year-olds.
* Give parents the power to bring in new school leadership teams, through mergers and takeovers, with up to 1,000 secondary schools part of an accredited schools group by 2015.
* Every young person guaranteed education or training until 18, with 75% going on to higher education, or completing an advanced apprenticeship or technician level training, by the age of 30. "
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
* Safeguard Britain's credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament set out in an emergency Budget within 50 days of taking office.
* Create the conditions for higher exports, business investment and savings, while cutting youth unemployment.
* Raise productivity growth in the public sector.
* Reform the regulation and structure of the banking system.
* Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase the UK's share of global markets for low carbon technologies.
* Cut a net £6 billion of waste in departmental spending in 2010-11.
* Freeze public sector pay for one year in 2011.
* Cut ministers' pay by 5%, followed by a five-year freeze.
* Reduce the number of MPs by 10% and cap public sector pensions above £50,000.
* Reverse Labour's planned National Insurance hike for anyone earning under £35,000 next year.
* Create a single Work Programme for everyone who is unemployed.
* Boost small businesses with automatic rate relief.
* Cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p and the small companies' rate to 20p.
* Set an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK.
* Block plans for second runways at Stansted and Gatwick, while starting work on new high speed rail network.
* Freeze council tax for two years and scrap plans for a revaluation.
* Re-link the basic state pension to earnings and protect the winter fuel payment.
* Give every patient the power to choose any healthcare provider which meets NHS standards within NHS prices.
* Stop the "forced" closure of accident and emergency wards, and commission a 24/7 urgent care service in every area of England.
* Raise standards in schools by enhancing the status of teachers and allowing state schools the freedom to offer same high quality international exams that private schools offer.
* Give parents the power to save local schools threatened by closure.
* Crack down on drink and drug-fuelled violence.
* Cut police paperwork to get more officers on the beat.
* Give voters the right to kick out MPs found guilty of serious wrongdoing.
* Publish more data so the public can hold government to account.
* Permanently raise the stamp duty threshold to £250,000 for first-time buyers.
* Scrap ID cards, cut back surveillance powers and "intrusive" powers of entry into people's homes.
* Give Parliament a vote on repeal of the Hunting Act.
* Create a new National Security Adviser and develop a National Security Strategy.
* Double the operational allowance for Armed Forces serving abroad.
* Introduce a referendum "lock" ensuring a vote on the transfer of any more powers to the EU.
For the record, no MPs were found guilty of serious wrongdoings in the expenses scandal. They were clearly playing the system to milk their expenses for all it was worth but they did so within the rules. The rules were broken and they used the loopholes to legally steal taxpayers money. In short it's just a cheap way of trying to use the scandal to grab a few votes, advertising "you have the power to sack them" whereas in actuality what we're pissed off about is not a sackable offence. It is of course wholly artificial. They most likely drew up a list of things people were pissed off about and tried to have something to appease every one of them.
On April 21 2010 07:33 On_Slaught wrote: I just watched most of the vid.
The aggressive nature of it (much like their parliment) is always intense to watch. I love how the person who ran the debate just screamed in names when he wanted that person to speak.
Cameron sounded like ass to me. I agree Clegg came out on top.
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
PR clearly would change a thing, even if you want to be smart about it lol.
On April 21 2010 07:33 On_Slaught wrote: I just watched most of the vid.
The aggressive nature of it (much like their parliment) is always intense to watch. I love how the person who ran the debate just screamed in names when he wanted that person to speak.
Cameron sounded like ass to me. I agree Clegg came out on top.
BTW, what the fuck is a MP lol.
An MP is a member of parliament, similar to your senators as i understand it.
It is worth noting that the Tories clearly will be making quite a big difference to the lives of people on welfare and disability benefit. Even if we are consenting that there is little to separate the main parties, we can be sure that one thing that separates them is how much people get from the state. Like I already said I know that if David Freud gets what he wants, don't be surprised if we move towards America's welfare style or a privatised welfare system. The same thing goes for research grants. Which may interest PhD students here, especially those who are studying less than mainstream subjects. The Tories will probably also cut something fierce from culture budgets, and apparently they might be getting rid of Radios 3 and 4, and BBC 4. Though I get this from an interview I read about where a Tory shadow cabinet minister questioned their viability, I don't know if they will do that or not. To be quite honest, the threat of them doing that is almost the scariest thing any party might do!
Also, I wanted to raise one question. Has the fact that Eurostar has jacked up prices ridiculously high after the ash cloud proven that privatised rail services can't be trusted? I'm in no way up on the debate but I remember something about it 5 years ago. Anyone care to voice an opinion, since we are discussing British politics?
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
PR clearly would change a thing, even if you want to be smart about it lol.
It would change the makeup of my government, but not my influence over it.
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
Yeah, but while I believe whether I vote or not makes no difference in the grand scheme of things it'll let me bitch about whoever wins the election without being a hypocrit and that's what counts.
On April 21 2010 07:33 On_Slaught wrote: I just watched most of the vid.
The aggressive nature of it (much like their parliment) is always intense to watch. I love how the person who ran the debate just screamed in names when he wanted that person to speak.
Cameron sounded like ass to me. I agree Clegg came out on top.
BTW, what the fuck is a MP lol.
An MP is a member of parliament, similar to your senators as i understand it.
Similar to congress. MPs are members of the lower house of the legislative branch.
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
Yeah, but while I believe whether I vote or not makes no difference in the grand scheme of things it'll let me bitch about whoever wins the election without being a hypocrit and that's what counts.
That's why i'm voting Green. Maximizes my options for bitching
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
PR clearly would change a thing, even if you want to be smart about it lol.
It would change the makeup of my government, but not my influence over it.
This is not a practical question and is just an excuse for mathematicians to gloat. You have statistically insignificant power but it is more than none. Because when your power is multiplied by a statistically significant number of voters, it actually becomes a large number; but when 0 is multiplied by anything it becomes 0.
On April 21 2010 07:40 sc4k wrote: It is worth noting that the Tories clearly will be making quite a big difference to the lives of people on welfare and disability benefit. Even if we are consenting that there is little to separate the main parties, we can be sure that one thing that separates them is how much people get from the state. Like I already said I know that if David Freud gets what he wants, don't be surprised if we move towards America's welfare style or a privatised welfare system. The same thing goes for research grants. Which may interest PhD students here, especially those who are studying less than mainstream subjects. The Tories will probably also cut something fierce from culture budgets, and apparently they might be getting rid of Radios 3 and 4, and BBC 4. Though I get this from an interview I read about where a Tory shadow cabinet minister questioned their viability, I don't know if they will do that or not. To be quite honest, the threat of them doing that is almost the scariest thing any party might do!
Also, I wanted to raise one question. Has the fact that Eurostar has jacked up prices ridiculously high after the ash cloud proven that privatised rail services can't be trusted? I'm in no way up on the debate but I remember something about it 5 years ago. Anyone care to voice an opinion, since we are discussing British politics?
It sucks that the Conservatives are making cuts but the country is very heavily in debt. In the end we have to accept the reality of the situation which is that not all the cuts can be out of things we don't like. Some of us are going to lose out. What you have to remember is that Brown was buying these things with borrowed money, they were never ours in the first place. It's just now we have to lose the nice things we borrowed and a bit more to pay it back.
On the Eurostar note, it loses a lot of money and is heavily in debt. I for one am glad that the money it loses isn't mine. If it has to price gouge to break even so be it.
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
PR clearly would change a thing, even if you want to be smart about it lol.
It would change the makeup of my government, but not my influence over it.
This is not a practical question and is just an excuse for mathematicians to gloat. You have statistically insignificant power but it is more than none. Because when your power is multiplied by a statistically significant number of voters, it actually becomes a large number; but when 0 is multiplied by anything it becomes 0.
But an individual doesn't get a statistically significant number of votes and I have no influence over these other voters. If I choose to vote on a whim that doesn't mean they will. The "if everyone did that" fallacy doesn't apply.
Regardless, there clearly is a difference between 0.000001 and 0. The chances of you choosing who is in power directly may be 1/30m, but the chances of you choosing the party who wins are something like 2/5 so if your party gets in you can be sure that there are 15m people who all know that, because you all combined together, you won the general election. There's something in that imo. *noob team imo* *imba map* *nerf hope* say the losers.
On April 21 2010 07:58 sc4k wrote: Regardless, there clearly is a difference between 0.000001 and 0. The chances of you choosing who is in power directly may be 1/30m, but the chances of you choosing the party who wins are something like 2/5 so if your party gets in you can be sure that there are 15m people who all know that, because you all combined together, you won the general election. There's something in that imo.
Every vote over the number of the second place is wasted. Every vote for a losing candidate is wasted. Only in the highly unlikely situation of a one vote margin does anyone's vote have any value. In every other situation nothing would change if a given individual didn't turn up.
On April 21 2010 01:57 UdderChaos wrote: Also they oppose commercial growing of GM crops, don't see why if they are tested as safe?
This pisses me off because GM is no more artificial than selective breeding, just more efficient. It's purely ignorant fearmongering about playing God that keeps them down. If it wasn't for high yield crops being created and dispersed hundreds of millions of people would have died. Edit: In fact, there really isn't much in the Lib Dems manifesto I like, I think mainly because they've never been in Government nor do any of them have any experience of Government. Their average voter has always been somewhat delusional and idealistic (for why else would you vote for a third party in a two party system) and their manifesto has always reflected that. Plans to appease everyone. Green energy, no war, good environment, happier people, puppies and rainbows. While I'm voting in a strongly Labour constituency in which the only credible challenge is Lib Dems I'm still tempted to throw my vote at the Conservatives. I'm rather apathetic about all three but I don't think the Lib Dems are ready for grown up politics yet.
Surely if you don't support any of the three major parties it would make more sence to throw your vote at the libdems, get some politcal reform out of them and thus have more viable parties in future elections, enabling you to vote for a party you actually like.
Except any vote is largely symbollic because one vote changes nothing. With that in mind I'd like to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, despite the fact that in FPTP it changes nothing.
With that logic you way aswell not vote at all as even if you use your vote to symbollically oppose Labour and the Lib Dems, it a symbol no-one will notice or care about. In fact if you extend the argument further, PR wouldn't change a thing as the odds of your single vote making a difference are minimal. The only soloution would be a mass scale devoloution of power.
PR clearly would change a thing, even if you want to be smart about it lol.
It would change the makeup of my government, but not my influence over it.
This is not a practical question and is just an excuse for mathematicians to gloat. You have statistically insignificant power but it is more than none. Because when your power is multiplied by a statistically significant number of voters, it actually becomes a large number; but when 0 is multiplied by anything it becomes 0.
But an individual doesn't get a statistically significant number of votes and I have no influence over these other voters. If I choose to vote on a whim that doesn't mean they will. The "if everyone did that" fallacy doesn't apply.
Pretty much this. Just to clarify though, i certainly agree a democracy is better a dictatorship but that's no excuse to settle: i'd rather seek a system where individuals are significant. Not that i have any great ideas on what that may be, it's just always worth keeping in mind that in our current system a single vote doesn't matter.
I personally think if one single person fails to vote for that reason it's a sad situation for our country. Of course if 30m people fail to vote for that reason it's even worse. I'll just have to hope that there are enough people who get a kick out of putting their effort in to be part of the winning side
Onto other affairs though. The Tories have a list of influential businessmen who disapprove of the planned National Insurance rise. This could either be because it really is a shit idea, or because businesses like Conservatives. Is the rather optimistic 'efficiency savings' and standard Tory VAT increase any better of an idea?
On April 21 2010 08:09 sc4k wrote: Onto other affairs though. The Tories have a list of influential businessmen who disapprove of the planned National Insurance rise. This could either be because it really is a shit idea, or because businesses like Conservatives. Is the rather optimistic 'efficiency savings' and standard Tory VAT increase any better of an idea?
Sorry to just quote a youtube video but on the efficiency savings topic + Show Spoiler +
I vote for policies rather than people (candidates) primarily. I feel that the liberal democrat policies represent me the best. My vote will go to the liberal democrats.
I really advise any Brits to go to the bbc iPlayer website and watch the Daily Politics policy debates between each of the relevant cabinet and shadow cabinet members.
On April 21 2010 08:09 sc4k wrote: Onto other affairs though. The Tories have a list of influential businessmen who disapprove of the planned National Insurance rise. This could either be because it really is a shit idea, or because businesses like Conservatives. Is the rather optimistic 'efficiency savings' and standard Tory VAT increase any better of an idea?
Well you have to start by understanding that either option is only a very small start in reducing our budget deficit. I find both the Conservatives and Labour very annoying on this issue. They won't say what they're going to do since a) they probably haven't decided yet b) it would be election suicide. Even the Lib Dems aren't telling the truth. Their manifesto is costed assuming you don't want to make any cuts. Even if they plan to increase the no tax bracket to £10,000 this year.... are they going to cut it again next year? I don't think they would actually do it even if there was a ridiculous upset and they got into power. + Show Spoiler [more on the Lib Dem tax break] +
By the way on the issue of the tax bracket; it doesn't help someone earning £6,000 at all whilst someone earning £99,000 would get a £700 tax break. I don't think it really makes much sense.
At some point there has to be cuts or tax increase, you can't get away from that. The reality is the sooner you do it the better.
However, I think it's clear that cuts are better than a NI increase. NI is a tax on jobs, you can't escape that. It will just increase household debt which as someone pointed out eventually leads to public debt anyway. Cutting spending is a much better way of reducing the deficit than increasing taxes.
When you get to taxes a VAT increase is really the most fair. Those who spend more pay more so it fairly taxes the rich more. And of course there is no VAT on food or baby clothes and some other important stuff. An income tax increase would also be reasonably fair too. The Lib Dem idea of joining capital gains tax with income tax (so top earners pay 50% on capital gains) isn't a bad idea in theory but I think most agree 50% is too high. Capital gains tax is 18% at the moment, putting it up to 30% might be more sensible.
This is what frustrates me the most about Brown. The fact that he just continually lies so much. In the debate he tries to push Cameron on his "promise" to protect the police funding. Gordon can't protect the police, no-one can. His NI increase would take money away from the police anyway. He wouldn't call it a cut but it's essentially the same thing.
TL;DR Cuts are better than a NI increase... but ultimately whoever gets in has to do a lot more. They WILL have to put up some form of tax and cut spending.
Yes it seems to me that a VAT increase makes more sense. Not sure why Labour is so reluctant to do it.
Also the Lib Dems have listed one of their ways of paying for the £10,000 cut as being stopping income tax avoidance. As far as I have been instructed, this is even less likely than cutting waste. It's something that people have been trying for freakin' ages. It's just really really hard to do.
On April 21 2010 08:55 sc4k wrote: Yes it seems to me that a VAT increase makes more sense. Not sure why Labour is so reluctant to do it.
Also the Lib Dems have listed one of their ways of paying for the £10,000 cut as being stopping income tax avoidance. As far as I have been instructed, this is even less likely than cutting waste. It's something that people have been trying for freakin' ages. It's just really really hard to do.
That's the capital gains tax increase I mentioned. To avoid more income tax you can take your wages in company shares, "gifts" and other things classed as "capital gains". Up to £10,000 of that is tax free and then levied at 18%. The lib dems would fix it at your tax rate, which could be the 50% top rate of tax.
Labour isn't reluctant to do a VAT increase they're just pretending they don't need to. However, I can almost guarantee you that they will since they'll try extremely hard not to directly cut anything.
He shouldn't even bother coming to the lib dem heartland and attempting to gain votes, it just isnt worth it. Also kinda annoyed by the fact the conservatives are pushing themselves as the only party for real change so much even though the lib dems have a far more "change filled" manifesto, though that is politics!
It will be interesting to see how Clegg does in the next debate(s)?
The origins of Cleggmania can be traced to last week's televised debate -- a first in Great Britain -- in which Clegg was widely considered to have stolen the show from the leaders of Britain's two largest political parties: current Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, and Conservative Party leader David Cameron. The headline the next day in the London Times read "Clegg comes of age." A poll taken after the debate led the Guardian to declare that "Clegg is now in contention as potential PM."
To top it off, the latest YouGov poll shows the Liberal Democrats to now be in the lead with 34 percent of the vote. The Conservative Party came in second with 31 percent. A week ago the Liberal Dems were hovering around 16 percent. Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish referred to the poll result as "the earthquake in Britain." John Curtice of the Independent has called the Liberal Dems' surge "the biggest shock to the electoral landscape in years."
On April 22 2010 03:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Double post but no reaction David Cameron hit with an egg?
Wow some idiot throws an egg, not really a story.
On April 22 2010 04:58 bmml wrote: He shouldn't even bother coming to the lib dem heartland and attempting to gain votes, it just isnt worth it. Also kinda annoyed by the fact the conservatives are pushing themselves as the only party for real change so much even though the lib dems have a far more "change filled" manifesto, though that is politics!
I agree all this talk of change is very annoying but the Liberals are no exception. They all play the PR game just at the moment Clegg is playing it the best.
I hope you're not fooled by the facebook groups and all the other nonsense.
At some point there has to be cuts or tax increase, you can't get away from that. The reality is the sooner you do it the better.
It is actually far from obvious (even within the mainstream economic paradigm which I generally reject but which I will assume for the purposes of addressing your point) that "the sooner you do it the better". Even many mainstream economists acknowledge that attempting to reduce a deficit too early undermines economic recovery and puts upward pressure on the deficit.
As I pointed out earlier, there is a level of deficit hysteria in Britain at present which is distracting from far more important issues such as productive activity in the economy and employment generation. Maintaining aggregate demand and stimulating productive activity will bring the deficit down naturally by well-understood economic mechanisms which have functioned time and again in the past.
On April 22 2010 03:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Double post but no reaction David Cameron hit with an egg?
Wow some idiot throws an egg, not really a story.
On April 22 2010 04:58 bmml wrote: He shouldn't even bother coming to the lib dem heartland and attempting to gain votes, it just isnt worth it. Also kinda annoyed by the fact the conservatives are pushing themselves as the only party for real change so much even though the lib dems have a far more "change filled" manifesto, though that is politics!
I agree all this talk of change is very annoying but the Liberals are no exception. They all play the PR game just at the moment Clegg is playing it the best.
I hope you're not fooled by the facebook groups and all the other nonsense.
Tax reform, parliamentary reform and hell they have one of Britains best economists as prospective chancellor, whats not to like!
Plus "fooled" is a bit of an overstatement the facebook groups debates etc are all the natural progression of British politics (which has been stuck in a time warp since 1997) allbeit smoke and mirrors.
On April 22 2010 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It will be interesting to see how Clegg does in the next debate(s)? + Show Spoiler +
The origins of Cleggmania can be traced to last week's televised debate -- a first in Great Britain -- in which Clegg was widely considered to have stolen the show from the leaders of Britain's two largest political parties: current Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, and Conservative Party leader David Cameron. The headline the next day in the London Times read "Clegg comes of age." A poll taken after the debate led the Guardian to declare that "Clegg is now in contention as potential PM."
To top it off, the latest YouGov poll shows the Liberal Democrats to now be in the lead with 34 percent of the vote. The Conservative Party came in second with 31 percent. A week ago the Liberal Dems were hovering around 16 percent. Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish referred to the poll result as "the earthquake in Britain." John Curtice of the Independent has called the Liberal Dems' surge "the biggest shock to the electoral landscape in years."
The next debate is on SkyNews (a channel relatively unwatched by the masses and only avaliable on digital tv) and will (I believe) probably only manage about 5 million views, half the previous. It is also focused on economics which I would say is the Lib Dems strong points if Clegg can just repeat the things talked about by Vince Cable in the chancellors debate a few weeks ago (which Cable was said to have "won" I'd imagine he'd "win" again, though Cameron/Brown will probably be far more critical of the Clegg in the next debate since they have seen the power hes supposedly gained from playing the "man on the outside" in the last one.
On April 22 2010 03:20 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Double post but no reaction David Cameron hit with an egg?
Wow some idiot throws an egg, not really a story.
On April 22 2010 04:58 bmml wrote: He shouldn't even bother coming to the lib dem heartland and attempting to gain votes, it just isnt worth it. Also kinda annoyed by the fact the conservatives are pushing themselves as the only party for real change so much even though the lib dems have a far more "change filled" manifesto, though that is politics!
I agree all this talk of change is very annoying but the Liberals are no exception. They all play the PR game just at the moment Clegg is playing it the best.
I hope you're not fooled by the facebook groups and all the other nonsense.
Tax reform, parliamentary reform and hell they have one of Britains best economists as prospective chancellor, whats not to like!
Plus "fooled" is a bit of an overstatement the facebook groups debates etc are all the natural progression of British politics (which has been stuck in a time warp since 1997) allbeit smoke and mirrors.
Tax reform that won't happen.. Parliamentary reform that favours their party (we've also already discussed the advantages/disadvantages of our current system). Vince Cable is great yes, but that's not really change it's just competency.
It's the same spin just spun another way. Clegg wasn't honest in the TV debate he just kept repeating practiced phrases "old politics", "lets do something new". I thought it was funny when he agreed with Cameron and said "I agree with.... (pause)....that". He'd obviously practiced not to say "I agree with Cameron". Then he took the holier-than-thou route on parliamentary funding, when the Liberals are no better. Also of the three Clegg has by far the worst expenses and only 5 years ago he was a lobbyist for the European parliament.
But the real reason change is an empty promise is that he still can't get elected. If he wants to be honest he should start talking about hung parliaments and admitting when he agrees on something the other parties say. If we get a Lib/Lab or Lib/Con Government we need Clegg to make sensible choices and to backup the PM; not continue to try to distance himself.
On April 22 2010 05:24 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: As I pointed out earlier, there is a level of deficit hysteria in Britain at present which is distracting from far more important issues such as productive activity in the economy and employment generation. Maintaining aggregate demand and stimulating productive activity will bring the deficit down naturally by well-understood economic mechanisms which have functioned time and again in the past.
You're not pointing out anything. There's nothing to point at it's just your opinion. I understand it's unwise to cut too heavily until the economy picks up but even that article you linked says "most advanced economies should embark on significant fiscal consolidation in 2011". If I'm focusing too much on cuts and taxes you seem to be ignoring them completely. You can't cut our deficit any other way. "Maintaining aggregate demand and stimulating productive activity" is very important but it won't reduce a deficit by itself. You didn't help to answer the initial question either. £6 billion is a rounding error, I don't think the IMF would say cutting that would damage the economy whilst a NI increase is a very unwise taxation at this time.
Don't mistake me, I understand that it's important we create an economy that provides services for the future. The problem is I believe the best way to do that is low taxation and small government. We are a long way from being able to create that position right now.
On April 22 2010 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It will be interesting to see how Clegg does in the next debate(s)? + Show Spoiler +
The origins of Cleggmania can be traced to last week's televised debate -- a first in Great Britain -- in which Clegg was widely considered to have stolen the show from the leaders of Britain's two largest political parties: current Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, and Conservative Party leader David Cameron. The headline the next day in the London Times read "Clegg comes of age." A poll taken after the debate led the Guardian to declare that "Clegg is now in contention as potential PM."
To top it off, the latest YouGov poll shows the Liberal Democrats to now be in the lead with 34 percent of the vote. The Conservative Party came in second with 31 percent. A week ago the Liberal Dems were hovering around 16 percent. Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish referred to the poll result as "the earthquake in Britain." John Curtice of the Independent has called the Liberal Dems' surge "the biggest shock to the electoral landscape in years."
The next debate is on SkyNews (a channel relatively unwatched by the masses and only avaliable on digital tv) and will (I believe) probably only manage about 5 million views, half the previous. It is also focused on economics which I would say is the Lib Dems strong points if Clegg can just repeat the things talked about by Vince Cable in the chancellors debate a few weeks ago (which Cable was said to have "won" I'd imagine he'd "win" again, though Cameron/Brown will probably be far more critical of the Clegg in the next debate since they have seen the power hes supposedly gained from playing the "man on the outside" in the last one.
ughhh sorry for double post
.
Scrap that it seems as though tommorows debate is on foreign policy. It'd be hard to see Brown coming out poorly in this one simply due to his experience.
I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
If I'm focusing too much on cuts and taxes you seem to be ignoring them completely. You can't cut our deficit any other way. "Maintaining aggregate demand and stimulating productive activity" is very important but it won't reduce a deficit by itself.
Actually it can. The economic mechanisms behind this are well understood and not particularly controversial even among mainstream economists, although they have been obscured in the current hysteria. Demand and productive activity are what generate economic growth, which by itself puts downward pressure on government deficits as tax revenue increases and welfare payments decrease. As I said, none of this is by itself controversial and an attention to the historical record confirms it pretty much beyond any doubt.
The fact remains that your claim that "the sooner you do it the better" is not self-evidently true. And indeed attempting to make serious reductions in the deficit right now would be most unwise.
On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote: I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market.
On April 22 2010 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It will be interesting to see how Clegg does in the next debate(s)? + Show Spoiler +
The origins of Cleggmania can be traced to last week's televised debate -- a first in Great Britain -- in which Clegg was widely considered to have stolen the show from the leaders of Britain's two largest political parties: current Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, and Conservative Party leader David Cameron. The headline the next day in the London Times read "Clegg comes of age." A poll taken after the debate led the Guardian to declare that "Clegg is now in contention as potential PM."
To top it off, the latest YouGov poll shows the Liberal Democrats to now be in the lead with 34 percent of the vote. The Conservative Party came in second with 31 percent. A week ago the Liberal Dems were hovering around 16 percent. Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish referred to the poll result as "the earthquake in Britain." John Curtice of the Independent has called the Liberal Dems' surge "the biggest shock to the electoral landscape in years."
The next debate is on SkyNews (a channel relatively unwatched by the masses and only avaliable on digital tv) and will (I believe) probably only manage about 5 million views, half the previous. It is also focused on economics which I would say is the Lib Dems strong points if Clegg can just repeat the things talked about by Vince Cable in the chancellors debate a few weeks ago (which Cable was said to have "won" I'd imagine he'd "win" again, though Cameron/Brown will probably be far more critical of the Clegg in the next debate since they have seen the power hes supposedly gained from playing the "man on the outside" in the last one.
ughhh sorry for double post
.
Scrap that it seems as though tommorows debate is on foreign policy. It'd be hard to see Brown coming out poorly in this one simply due to his experience.
His claims about meeting every army demand for funds simply aren't true (but how could they be when the army is a black hole that'll spend whatever you give it). I expect Cameron to lay into him about requests which were refused while he was Chancellor, for while his record has been somewhat better in the last few years he cannot escape the fact that he has controlled the budget for 13 years. As the incumbent he cannot strike back at their records and his own is vulnerable.
Browns economic credentials are zilch. He sold around 400 tons of gold in 1999 (As treasurer) at the bottom of the market , gold is now worth around 4 times what it was back then.I know he's keynesian but that is beyond a joke.
Conservatives housing advisor is Kirstie Allsopp who runs property porn television programs - the housing bubble is what caused the global financial crisis (and has cost the UK at least 1 trillion pounds in bailouts thus far).
Clegg i don't know much about but he seems the same as the other two major parties.
The only wise choice would be to vote UKIP or BNP just to annoy the major parties but i predict the smallest % turnout on record for this one.Apathy is on the rise.
The only wise choice would be to vote UKIP or BNP just to annoy the major parties
While the BNP attracts the disaffected and feeble-minded to its periphery, at its core it is made up of little more than a disturbing group of racist thugs. It is hard for me to imagine a circumstance in which voting BNP would be a "wise choice".
On April 22 2010 16:30 PobTheCad wrote: The only wise choice would be to vote UKIP or BNP just to annoy the major parties
It's just a pity we can't vote for Hitler... If only there were some way of wasting a vote that couldn't accidentally elect right wing xenophobes. Some way of spoiling a ballot. Or some kind of joke party that doesn't hate blacks. If only that existed. On a slightly related note, here is the 2010 manifesto of the Monster Raving Loony Party. + Show Spoiler +
1.
Cool on the outside: To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside. 2.
Wheelie Bins: The idea of weight monitoring chips in wheelie bins should be scrapped, instead the wheels should be removed, this would mean that if people generated too much waist they could not put their non-wheelie bin out for collection. It would also help prevent them being chucked into canals. 3.
Needles Due to the increasing number of children afraid of needles, I propose the destruction of the tedious, scary and often painful process of school vaccinations. Instead, I propose that highly trained nurses should be given free reign on the playground with specially modified tranquillizer rifles which apply vaccinations as well as a tranquillizer. This would have two main benefits: It would be less scary for the children as they will not know what hit them, also it will be more fun for the nurses
4.
Hypocrites It is proposed that all politicians be made to swear a "hippocratic oath", preventing them by law from being Hypocrites. All politicians should be made to stand by their policies, or or at least admit that they were wrong.
5.
GCSE Lottery It is proposed that, before the beginning of exams, the exam board will select a certain obscure phrase which will be kept secret. If any pupil inadvertently writes this phrase in any exam,he/she will automaticaly receive straight A* grades, and a free teddy. 6. One Sided Policy
It is proposed that The European Union end its discrimination by creating a "Court of Human Lefts" because their present policy is one_sided. 7.
Prison Food The problems of prison overcrowding and increased crime will be solved easily by issuing a compulsory contract on McDonalds to do all prison catering. Convervative estimates suggest a 50% reduction in crime rates within 2 years with 0% re-offender figures. 8.
Political Colours All politicians should paint them self's permantly head to toe in the colour of the party they represent - e.g. all Labour candidates in Red , all Conservatives in Blue ,etc,etc 9.
One hours silence. At 12 0' clock pm every day we will have a one hour silence dedicated to our time that has been lost due to work, home and labour 10.
Good Heroes Make it illegal for super heroes to use their powers for evil. 11. Safe Tractors Ban tractors from driving on roads, they can drive across their fields. 12. 13. Scary Terrorists Ban all terrorists from having beards as they look scary. 14. 15.
Poop Scoop Anyone allowing their Hyena to poop on the pavement should shovel it away immediately, As this is no laughing matter 16. Put a Sock in it All socks to be sold in packs of 3 as a precaution against losing one.
(checkout this website to find the inventor of this product www.THROX.com ... ) 17. A Hanging Offence It is proposed to systematicly destroy all wire coat hangers. Shirts slip off them. People hang them on doorhandles. They bend when you hang jeans on them. The flick off rails. They join together in pairs. The gaggle in dodgy, tinny, wiry orgies, tingling nastily. They have a static sneer. Have you ever actually seen anybody buy them? Who even sells them? Do they just appear in your wardrobes? They seem to have a near endless domestic omnipresence. Not only a waste of wire, but a waste of time. How often have you had to rehang things on them? Or perhaps Reiron shirts after being bent ruthlessly shapelss thereon? Then they spin of the rail and onto the floor. You kick them and then get wrapped around your foot, or sibling. And then if you can find a bin that will fit such a stupidly angular object, the sadistic little sharp corner on the hook rips the bag and there it is again, escaped. What a malicious little sod. Let's face it; The only use for metal coat hangers is to unravel them and make them into something else. Therefore, it is proposed that all wire coathangers should be systematically hung, drawn and unravelled, under the 1936 Public Order Act. 18.
Eurofit The European Constitution which will be sorted out by going for a long Walk. "As everyone knows that walking is good for the constitution" 19.
Sweet Shares Sell shares in Northen rock, buy shares in Blackpool rock! 20.
Terror Passport Separate Passports for Terrorists: Terrorists should be required (by virtue of law) to apply for separate passports in which they give there full contact details, number of explosives, and time (as well as location) of any plot. This would save time and money in gathering intelligence, and could also help identify the intended ambition(s) behind any atrocity(s). 21.
Obeescity in Kids If you want your kids to be less fat...feed em less (do we need to make a policy of this?....its common sense) 22.
Making Taxes Irrelevant Abolishing the ‘inheritance tax’ is all well and good, but what will the funds be replaced with? It is proposed to create an ‘irrelevance tax’, where people of limited seriousness make up the tax shortfall. What better way to obtain public support than to abolish inheritance tax AND pay the public’s taxation at the same time! 23.
Allotted Proposal A proposal by DBopenlock. Make Weeding an olympic sport in order to save the 100 year old Manor Garden Allotments from being demolished for the 2012 games. 24.
Isle of? It is proposed that the Isle of Man be renamed to "The Isle of Men, Women, Children and some Animals" as not just men live there 25.
NHS Dentistry. All newly trained Dentists will be require to have three teeth removed, 2 fillings and root canal work done without anesthetic. Then they will know the agony they inflict on the rest of us. 26.
Interesting News: Every day the news should tell people an interesting fact in a hope to increase people's knowledge. 27.
A Warm solution: It is proposed that all pavements are heated so it is possible to walk bare foot in the winter, this would also serve another purpose by making the pavements warm no ice would form on them thereby reducing the risk of injury for everyone. 28.
A Lions share: It is proposed that we change the English symbol of three lions to 3 badgers. How often do you see lions running round the countryside, we should be proud of the lack of wild and interesting species on our fair isle. 29.
Olimpic event: 'Following the Leader' is a pastime that has been cast aside by society today and we think it should become an extreme event in the Olimpicks. (We are keeping this one hidden from Tony Blair as he may make it law) 30.
Political correctness The Isle of Wight should be changed to: "The Isle of Mixed Races, and Cultures Located off the Coast of Britain." 31.
Animal fashions It is proposed that ets, especially cats and dogs, may not be dressed in miniature human clothing for the purpose of human amusement, unless the animal in question can equip the clothing himself/herself. Punishable by dressing the owner of the animal in miniature human clothing. 32.
Edukayshun GCSE English exams be given a more straight-forward layout, with lots of short questions like the Maths papers have. 33.
Education (Skool acktiviteas) Homework should be banned as it is bad enough for kids having to go to school let alone bring it home with them 34.
Bright Skoolkids Bright pupils will be provided with dimmer switches to prevent them distracting the rest of the class. 35.
Skool Dinners r hot? School dinners must be regularly checked for radioactivity. 36.
P.E.lessons We should teach proper sports in P.E. e.g. Fishing, Fencing, and how to let the head teacher's car tyres down without getting caught. 37.
Education As well as using computers in schools, children should be taught to reed, rite, and appreciate rock. 38.
Keep Edukayshun Fit In order to keep our teachers fit, 3 periods a week of PE will be allocated for teachers/headmasters and any ancillary staff who happen to be in the area (i.e dinner ladies etc,) (and pupils get to watch. Skipping for men and football for ladies) 39.
Bench mark for schools To combat discomfort and possible medical litigation, Cushions will be provided for all school chairs. 40.
Skools Out School will be dismissed if three or more pigeons make it into the central corridor. 41.
SKool Dinners Pizza Hut and KFC to provide school meals. 42.
Teaching Skool Dress Code All teachers should come to school dressed as pink teddy bears then they will not be so intimidating. 43.
Too much Talking Languages should be banned in schools as most kids (and adults) have trouble with English. 44.
No fly Zone It is proposed to declare the Channel Tunnel a No Fly Zone. 45.
Telling Fibbs It is proposed that Political leaders are banned if they avoid a straight answer "Yes" or "No". As they may still be telling fibbs, any such person found to string out an answer longer than2.8 seconds should be forced to undertake a lie detector test. 46.
Elecshun Lottery It is proposed that people should have a free go on the national lottery when they go and vote. 47.
Bugged Singers All singers who's names sound like infectious diseases( i.e: Chriestina Aguilera, Natalie Imbruglia) will be provided with free antibiotics courtesy of the NHS, just in case it spreads. You can never be safe enough! 48.
Paper (Health & Safety) Paper cuts (being extremely painful) should be banned. Paper manufacturers will be required to surround all paper with a foam frame. This will ensure that it will not be harmful to children under the age of 80. 49.
Say "No" to Cruelty It is proposed to abolish all kinds of animal cruely including flie swatters, hunting, chasing kangaroos off cliffs etc, also eating of plants as it causes undue stress to the plant and all weed killers shold be considered as a weapon of mass destruction, pain should also be made illegal. 50.
Poetic License Poets will have to sign up for a 'poetic license' this way shoddy poetry will be eliminated. Also in the test for the license wannabe poets will need to write funny limericks. They will be asked to produce at least one a week, or they are stripped of their license. 51.
Fun Shopping To boost the country's economy - it is proposed that British citizens visit shopping centres wearing a squeeky red clown nose and green wig. This would make shopping mush more fun. 52.
Stop Me and Fry One Combine the love of Fishing with the great british love of queuing by putting bus stops near canals and lakes. This will also provide convenient homeward transport for britain's proud anglers and will save space. 53.
Nice Curves A government agency will be set up to paint contour lines on to hills and colour roads the same as on maps. This will help people know where they are. 54.
Elections Make You Cross. Why do we put a "cross" on the ballot paper. A cross normally means "thats wrong". We propose that a "tick" would be more suitable. Putting across next to someones name on the ballot paper is as good as writing "monumental cock up" next to their name. 55.
Iraq. Polcy on Iraq: Since Iraq needs to have a proper infrastructure before they can run their own country, I propose we send our traffic wardens out to Iraq to give tickets to American Jeeps and Tanks illegally parked thereby raising much needed revenue for the Iraq government (and giving us a much needed break!) 56.
Prescott Day Since we have Guy Fawkes day because Fawkes ATTEMPTED to destroy Parliament (Penny for the Guy, mate!) and we burn effigies of Fawkes, should we not have a John Prescott day for SUCCEEDING in destroying Parliament, well credibility at least (Penny for the John, mate!) and we could throw John on the bonfire. 57.
National Defense. To keep our nation on it's toes, we should have a minimum of 2 nuclear war drills a day. 58.
Jumping the Que We propose dedicated pogo stick lanes on routes to centres of work. 59.
Parking Wardens Sarcasm. All traffic wardens should be banned from using the phrase "Hello wing commander having trouble taking off" 60.
Lucky Month. We propose to create 13th month, to get all those little things out of the way. The things you just never had time to do... like take out the trash, vote in a general election, learn Latin... Another benefit would be that all monthly paid earners would receive an extra months pay. 61.
Nessie The Loch Ness Monster should be added to the endangered species list. 62.
Good Knight Ozzy Osborne must receive a knighthood. 63.
Home of your Own All new homes should be built with a swimming pool and bouncy castle as standard. To lower the house prices and help young people I propose we erase the last ‘0’ from the price. 64.
Seating Arrangements All armchairs and sofas should be redesigned so as not to include a gap where small articles (such as loose change, keys, remote controls and kitchen sinks) can fall down. 65.
Disipline in Parliament Government Whips will only be used if a politician has been really bad. Minor offences should receive the political slipper. 66.
Footnote Asterisks will be banned* 67.
Asylum's a Joke All asylum seekers would be allowed to stay as long as they can tell a good joke 68.
Defense All soldiers serving abroad would be issued with a long ranged laser guided water pistols 69.
Obecity...obeesIT....fat kids To tackle the growing problem of obesity in children, It is proposed that all stair lifts in old folks homes be removed and replaced with hand operated pulley systems. These pulley systems will be operated by the obese children on a rotational period so as not to cut into their schooling. The effort required to lift these OAP's will be adequate exercise for our plump offspring. 70.
Foreign policy: Whenever Great Britain is to play host to a foreign nation in an international sporting event, the British teams should ensure that the visiting team wins. This is correct and proper - it is only polite to allow our guest to win a few games. The beneficial effects of such a policy should not be underestimated, indeed the recent war in Iraq could well have been averted if the forces of Saddam Hussein had been allowed to win a one day international cricket match or a nice game of rugger. 71.
Saintly State The creation of a "State-Saint-System" where-by people can vote for ANYONE who they wish to be blessed in as a saint - EXAMPLE. St Dodd of Tickle-stick, St Roy of the Rovers. 72.
N.H.S Chocolate be available as a prescription drug 73.
Pay for Free CD's Free CDs with magazines and newspapers be made genuinely free, and available to take away from shops, supermarkets and filling stations etc, and the purchase of the related newspaper and magazine selling the free CD, along with the CD itself be made an optional extra? Those that choose not to buy the newspaper can then nominate a fish and chip shop to send the newspaper to, thereby supporting the environmentally friendly practice of paper recycling? CDs aren't really free if you have to pay to get them! 74.
Paperwaits Weekend newspapers. They're rather heavy aren't they, especially broadsheets? A lot of supplements you'll never bother to read. A waste isn't it? How about paying a price for the 'Basic Broadsheet Package', that of the main newspaper on its own, and then a small top-up charge for those newspaper supplements that you will actually read, and leave the other supplements on the shelf to remain available to those interested in them? 75.
N.H.S Maltesers should be on prescription. 76.
Traffic As you may be aware, there have been recent measures to reduce congestion in London with proposals for other major cities to follow suit. It is proposed that all car owners in the affected areas (London and soon Birmingham, Manchester, etc,) be forced to replace their cars with hovercrafts for the following reasons: 1. Hovercrafts can go on all terrain, meaning they can spread out, take short cuts and go on water etc. 2. As they are inflatable, being hit by one will be less painful. 3. They could use the canal system, thus creating extra jobs and revitalizing a sadly neglected part of our Heritage. 3. Electric eels like hovercrafts because of their association with the see, therefore, electric eels should be persuaded to jump start any hovercraft where the battery is dead. 77.
Best meal of the Day It is proposed that we should introduce Asparagus for breakfast. 78.
Mind the manholes In order to reduce polution all cars must have their engines removed, instead they should have holes in the bottom where people can put their feet and run along. This would be a little bit like the flintstones 79.
Women's football To get more men to watch women's football all players should have to swap shirts at the end of games (or better still, every time they kick the ball?) 80.
Rainbow stop It is proposed that we should get rid of three colour traffic lights, and replace it with a much larger spectrum. 81.
Good Morning It should be illegal to wake up prior to 9.00 A.M. Offenders will made to work on a treadmill for 25 hours, and then woken up after 30 mins heavy sleep with a large alarm clock. Thrown at them. The exception to this rule will be Doctors who, will have to work longer hours due to the extra number of reported head injuries 82.
An Englishman's home is his Chateaux It is proposed that everyone in England should buy one hundred square meters (or be subsidized to do so) of France. The English would then own France, saving a lot of arguments, and winning us another UN veto... After owning France, It is proposed that we should rent it back to the French Then we should start on Germany. 83.
Fellowship of the OMRLP It is proposed that being the Lord of the Ring should be illegal. Anyone who owns the Ring should hand it into the capable hands of the OMRLP. From now on, when ever someone disappears, they should be called "Smeagol" or "Gollum" instead of John or Jane Doe. 84.
Harry's Potty As punishment, for their crimes against fiction, Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson and Christopher Columbus (Harry Potter, Hermionie and the director of Harry Potter, respectively) should be made to stand in front of the ridiculous sign in Kings Cross. Platform 3 and 3/4s, 85.
Logical New Industries The energizer should be invented. As should the Enterprise. As should the Vulcan. Don't understand why? Well it is highly illogical... 86.
Working Time Regulations Dr. Who shall be made to work doctors hours, we shall not be biased towards Time Lords. 87.
Computations Canon should be shot. Dell shall be pelted with dill. There should be 5 Pentiums. Why arn't Windows crystal clear? 88.
A Place in History History should be renamed Geography. As in "Right that's it. You're geography!" 89.
Waxing Works Madame Tussaud's should be renamed Ms Tussaud's. 90.
Start Wars Jedi should be recognised as a Religion. Did you know that there are more Jedi's in England than Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, or anything that isn't Hindu, Christian or Muslim. 91.
Not liked It is suggested that we should be xenophobic. But, being English, it isn't practical. 92.
Guard Dogs Guard Dogs shall no longer be permitted.(they're so vicious) It is proposed that they will be replaced with Guard Tortoises, called Shelly. 93.
Olimpix Supermarket Trolley Formation Dancing to be made an Olimpick event. 94.
Health & Wealth All persons born with "a silver spoon in their mouth" will have it surgically removed at birth on the N.H.S This will help to prevent mental illness in later years. i.e. Delusions of Self Importance. 95.
Things going Bad We will set up an inquiry to find out if: (a). Things are really that Bad and (b). They are out to get you 96.
Bon Voyage We will pass a law ordering British Airways flight attendants to CHEER UP! 97.
Keep Fit P.E should be an optional school subject and not permited during winter. (Unless you permit it) 98.
Spectator Sport Cricket will be made more interesting by elliminating the use of padding. (and possibly Cricket Bats)
Notable policies To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside. Make it illegal for super heroes to use their powers for evil. The Loch Ness Monster should be added to the endangered species list. Ozzy Osborne must receive a knighthood. All asylum seekers would be allowed to stay as long as they can tell a good joke
If I'm focusing too much on cuts and taxes you seem to be ignoring them completely. You can't cut our deficit any other way. "Maintaining aggregate demand and stimulating productive activity" is very important but it won't reduce a deficit by itself.
Actually it can. The economic mechanisms behind this are well understood and not particularly controversial even among mainstream economists, although they have been obscured in the current hysteria. Demand and productive activity are what generate economic growth, which by itself puts downward pressure on government deficits as tax revenue increases and welfare payments decrease. As I said, none of this is by itself controversial and an attention to the historical record confirms it pretty much beyond any doubt.
The fact remains that your claim that "the sooner you do it the better" is not self-evidently true. And indeed attempting to make serious reductions in the deficit right now would be most unwise.
Well you cherry picked that quote. I agree it's not true in all cases and we shouldn't cut hard this year. I don't know whether you consider pay freezes as pay cuts, maybe you're suggesting you could freeze pay you weren't clear.
However if you seriously believe that the deficit in this country will go away by itself then I'm sorry but you're in an overwhelming minority of opinion. It might be the case that when the deficit is within reasonable boundaries you can continue spending and recoup the loses but we are far removed from that reality. What you're talking about is fantasy land. We've done well so far to keep unemployment as low as it is and I think that's a tribute to the flexibility of our economy. But 2.8 million is still a very large figure. Attempting to reduce unemployment and increase tax revenue through greater productivity is definitely important but it's too little too late.
On April 22 2010 16:30 PobTheCad wrote: The only wise choice would be to vote UKIP or BNP just to annoy the major parties
It's just a pity we can't vote for Hitler... If only there were some way of wasting a vote that couldn't accidentally elect right wing xenophobes. Some way of spoiling a ballot. Or some kind of joke party that doesn't hate blacks. If only that existed. On a slightly related note, here is the 2010 manifesto of the Monster Raving Loony Party. + Show Spoiler +
1.
Cool on the outside: To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside. 2.
Wheelie Bins: The idea of weight monitoring chips in wheelie bins should be scrapped, instead the wheels should be removed, this would mean that if people generated too much waist they could not put their non-wheelie bin out for collection. It would also help prevent them being chucked into canals. 3.
Needles Due to the increasing number of children afraid of needles, I propose the destruction of the tedious, scary and often painful process of school vaccinations. Instead, I propose that highly trained nurses should be given free reign on the playground with specially modified tranquillizer rifles which apply vaccinations as well as a tranquillizer. This would have two main benefits: It would be less scary for the children as they will not know what hit them, also it will be more fun for the nurses
4.
Hypocrites It is proposed that all politicians be made to swear a "hippocratic oath", preventing them by law from being Hypocrites. All politicians should be made to stand by their policies, or or at least admit that they were wrong.
5.
GCSE Lottery It is proposed that, before the beginning of exams, the exam board will select a certain obscure phrase which will be kept secret. If any pupil inadvertently writes this phrase in any exam,he/she will automaticaly receive straight A* grades, and a free teddy. 6. One Sided Policy
It is proposed that The European Union end its discrimination by creating a "Court of Human Lefts" because their present policy is one_sided. 7.
Prison Food The problems of prison overcrowding and increased crime will be solved easily by issuing a compulsory contract on McDonalds to do all prison catering. Convervative estimates suggest a 50% reduction in crime rates within 2 years with 0% re-offender figures. 8.
Political Colours All politicians should paint them self's permantly head to toe in the colour of the party they represent - e.g. all Labour candidates in Red , all Conservatives in Blue ,etc,etc 9.
One hours silence. At 12 0' clock pm every day we will have a one hour silence dedicated to our time that has been lost due to work, home and labour 10.
Good Heroes Make it illegal for super heroes to use their powers for evil. 11. Safe Tractors Ban tractors from driving on roads, they can drive across their fields. 12. 13. Scary Terrorists Ban all terrorists from having beards as they look scary. 14. 15.
Poop Scoop Anyone allowing their Hyena to poop on the pavement should shovel it away immediately, As this is no laughing matter 16. Put a Sock in it All socks to be sold in packs of 3 as a precaution against losing one.
(checkout this website to find the inventor of this product www.THROX.com ... ) 17. A Hanging Offence It is proposed to systematicly destroy all wire coat hangers. Shirts slip off them. People hang them on doorhandles. They bend when you hang jeans on them. The flick off rails. They join together in pairs. The gaggle in dodgy, tinny, wiry orgies, tingling nastily. They have a static sneer. Have you ever actually seen anybody buy them? Who even sells them? Do they just appear in your wardrobes? They seem to have a near endless domestic omnipresence. Not only a waste of wire, but a waste of time. How often have you had to rehang things on them? Or perhaps Reiron shirts after being bent ruthlessly shapelss thereon? Then they spin of the rail and onto the floor. You kick them and then get wrapped around your foot, or sibling. And then if you can find a bin that will fit such a stupidly angular object, the sadistic little sharp corner on the hook rips the bag and there it is again, escaped. What a malicious little sod. Let's face it; The only use for metal coat hangers is to unravel them and make them into something else. Therefore, it is proposed that all wire coathangers should be systematically hung, drawn and unravelled, under the 1936 Public Order Act. 18.
Eurofit The European Constitution which will be sorted out by going for a long Walk. "As everyone knows that walking is good for the constitution" 19.
Sweet Shares Sell shares in Northen rock, buy shares in Blackpool rock! 20.
Terror Passport Separate Passports for Terrorists: Terrorists should be required (by virtue of law) to apply for separate passports in which they give there full contact details, number of explosives, and time (as well as location) of any plot. This would save time and money in gathering intelligence, and could also help identify the intended ambition(s) behind any atrocity(s). 21.
Obeescity in Kids If you want your kids to be less fat...feed em less (do we need to make a policy of this?....its common sense) 22.
Making Taxes Irrelevant Abolishing the ‘inheritance tax’ is all well and good, but what will the funds be replaced with? It is proposed to create an ‘irrelevance tax’, where people of limited seriousness make up the tax shortfall. What better way to obtain public support than to abolish inheritance tax AND pay the public’s taxation at the same time! 23.
Allotted Proposal A proposal by DBopenlock. Make Weeding an olympic sport in order to save the 100 year old Manor Garden Allotments from being demolished for the 2012 games. 24.
Isle of? It is proposed that the Isle of Man be renamed to "The Isle of Men, Women, Children and some Animals" as not just men live there 25.
NHS Dentistry. All newly trained Dentists will be require to have three teeth removed, 2 fillings and root canal work done without anesthetic. Then they will know the agony they inflict on the rest of us. 26.
Interesting News: Every day the news should tell people an interesting fact in a hope to increase people's knowledge. 27.
A Warm solution: It is proposed that all pavements are heated so it is possible to walk bare foot in the winter, this would also serve another purpose by making the pavements warm no ice would form on them thereby reducing the risk of injury for everyone. 28.
A Lions share: It is proposed that we change the English symbol of three lions to 3 badgers. How often do you see lions running round the countryside, we should be proud of the lack of wild and interesting species on our fair isle. 29.
Olimpic event: 'Following the Leader' is a pastime that has been cast aside by society today and we think it should become an extreme event in the Olimpicks. (We are keeping this one hidden from Tony Blair as he may make it law) 30.
Political correctness The Isle of Wight should be changed to: "The Isle of Mixed Races, and Cultures Located off the Coast of Britain." 31.
Animal fashions It is proposed that ets, especially cats and dogs, may not be dressed in miniature human clothing for the purpose of human amusement, unless the animal in question can equip the clothing himself/herself. Punishable by dressing the owner of the animal in miniature human clothing. 32.
Edukayshun GCSE English exams be given a more straight-forward layout, with lots of short questions like the Maths papers have. 33.
Education (Skool acktiviteas) Homework should be banned as it is bad enough for kids having to go to school let alone bring it home with them 34.
Bright Skoolkids Bright pupils will be provided with dimmer switches to prevent them distracting the rest of the class. 35.
Skool Dinners r hot? School dinners must be regularly checked for radioactivity. 36.
P.E.lessons We should teach proper sports in P.E. e.g. Fishing, Fencing, and how to let the head teacher's car tyres down without getting caught. 37.
Education As well as using computers in schools, children should be taught to reed, rite, and appreciate rock. 38.
Keep Edukayshun Fit In order to keep our teachers fit, 3 periods a week of PE will be allocated for teachers/headmasters and any ancillary staff who happen to be in the area (i.e dinner ladies etc,) (and pupils get to watch. Skipping for men and football for ladies) 39.
Bench mark for schools To combat discomfort and possible medical litigation, Cushions will be provided for all school chairs. 40.
Skools Out School will be dismissed if three or more pigeons make it into the central corridor. 41.
SKool Dinners Pizza Hut and KFC to provide school meals. 42.
Teaching Skool Dress Code All teachers should come to school dressed as pink teddy bears then they will not be so intimidating. 43.
Too much Talking Languages should be banned in schools as most kids (and adults) have trouble with English. 44.
No fly Zone It is proposed to declare the Channel Tunnel a No Fly Zone. 45.
Telling Fibbs It is proposed that Political leaders are banned if they avoid a straight answer "Yes" or "No". As they may still be telling fibbs, any such person found to string out an answer longer than2.8 seconds should be forced to undertake a lie detector test. 46.
Elecshun Lottery It is proposed that people should have a free go on the national lottery when they go and vote. 47.
Bugged Singers All singers who's names sound like infectious diseases( i.e: Chriestina Aguilera, Natalie Imbruglia) will be provided with free antibiotics courtesy of the NHS, just in case it spreads. You can never be safe enough! 48.
Paper (Health & Safety) Paper cuts (being extremely painful) should be banned. Paper manufacturers will be required to surround all paper with a foam frame. This will ensure that it will not be harmful to children under the age of 80. 49.
Say "No" to Cruelty It is proposed to abolish all kinds of animal cruely including flie swatters, hunting, chasing kangaroos off cliffs etc, also eating of plants as it causes undue stress to the plant and all weed killers shold be considered as a weapon of mass destruction, pain should also be made illegal. 50.
Poetic License Poets will have to sign up for a 'poetic license' this way shoddy poetry will be eliminated. Also in the test for the license wannabe poets will need to write funny limericks. They will be asked to produce at least one a week, or they are stripped of their license. 51.
Fun Shopping To boost the country's economy - it is proposed that British citizens visit shopping centres wearing a squeeky red clown nose and green wig. This would make shopping mush more fun. 52.
Stop Me and Fry One Combine the love of Fishing with the great british love of queuing by putting bus stops near canals and lakes. This will also provide convenient homeward transport for britain's proud anglers and will save space. 53.
Nice Curves A government agency will be set up to paint contour lines on to hills and colour roads the same as on maps. This will help people know where they are. 54.
Elections Make You Cross. Why do we put a "cross" on the ballot paper. A cross normally means "thats wrong". We propose that a "tick" would be more suitable. Putting across next to someones name on the ballot paper is as good as writing "monumental cock up" next to their name. 55.
Iraq. Polcy on Iraq: Since Iraq needs to have a proper infrastructure before they can run their own country, I propose we send our traffic wardens out to Iraq to give tickets to American Jeeps and Tanks illegally parked thereby raising much needed revenue for the Iraq government (and giving us a much needed break!) 56.
Prescott Day Since we have Guy Fawkes day because Fawkes ATTEMPTED to destroy Parliament (Penny for the Guy, mate!) and we burn effigies of Fawkes, should we not have a John Prescott day for SUCCEEDING in destroying Parliament, well credibility at least (Penny for the John, mate!) and we could throw John on the bonfire. 57.
National Defense. To keep our nation on it's toes, we should have a minimum of 2 nuclear war drills a day. 58.
Jumping the Que We propose dedicated pogo stick lanes on routes to centres of work. 59.
Parking Wardens Sarcasm. All traffic wardens should be banned from using the phrase "Hello wing commander having trouble taking off" 60.
Lucky Month. We propose to create 13th month, to get all those little things out of the way. The things you just never had time to do... like take out the trash, vote in a general election, learn Latin... Another benefit would be that all monthly paid earners would receive an extra months pay. 61.
Nessie The Loch Ness Monster should be added to the endangered species list. 62.
Good Knight Ozzy Osborne must receive a knighthood. 63.
Home of your Own All new homes should be built with a swimming pool and bouncy castle as standard. To lower the house prices and help young people I propose we erase the last ‘0’ from the price. 64.
Seating Arrangements All armchairs and sofas should be redesigned so as not to include a gap where small articles (such as loose change, keys, remote controls and kitchen sinks) can fall down. 65.
Disipline in Parliament Government Whips will only be used if a politician has been really bad. Minor offences should receive the political slipper. 66.
Footnote Asterisks will be banned* 67.
Asylum's a Joke All asylum seekers would be allowed to stay as long as they can tell a good joke 68.
Defense All soldiers serving abroad would be issued with a long ranged laser guided water pistols 69.
Obecity...obeesIT....fat kids To tackle the growing problem of obesity in children, It is proposed that all stair lifts in old folks homes be removed and replaced with hand operated pulley systems. These pulley systems will be operated by the obese children on a rotational period so as not to cut into their schooling. The effort required to lift these OAP's will be adequate exercise for our plump offspring. 70.
Foreign policy: Whenever Great Britain is to play host to a foreign nation in an international sporting event, the British teams should ensure that the visiting team wins. This is correct and proper - it is only polite to allow our guest to win a few games. The beneficial effects of such a policy should not be underestimated, indeed the recent war in Iraq could well have been averted if the forces of Saddam Hussein had been allowed to win a one day international cricket match or a nice game of rugger. 71.
Saintly State The creation of a "State-Saint-System" where-by people can vote for ANYONE who they wish to be blessed in as a saint - EXAMPLE. St Dodd of Tickle-stick, St Roy of the Rovers. 72.
N.H.S Chocolate be available as a prescription drug 73.
Pay for Free CD's Free CDs with magazines and newspapers be made genuinely free, and available to take away from shops, supermarkets and filling stations etc, and the purchase of the related newspaper and magazine selling the free CD, along with the CD itself be made an optional extra? Those that choose not to buy the newspaper can then nominate a fish and chip shop to send the newspaper to, thereby supporting the environmentally friendly practice of paper recycling? CDs aren't really free if you have to pay to get them! 74.
Paperwaits Weekend newspapers. They're rather heavy aren't they, especially broadsheets? A lot of supplements you'll never bother to read. A waste isn't it? How about paying a price for the 'Basic Broadsheet Package', that of the main newspaper on its own, and then a small top-up charge for those newspaper supplements that you will actually read, and leave the other supplements on the shelf to remain available to those interested in them? 75.
N.H.S Maltesers should be on prescription. 76.
Traffic As you may be aware, there have been recent measures to reduce congestion in London with proposals for other major cities to follow suit. It is proposed that all car owners in the affected areas (London and soon Birmingham, Manchester, etc,) be forced to replace their cars with hovercrafts for the following reasons: 1. Hovercrafts can go on all terrain, meaning they can spread out, take short cuts and go on water etc. 2. As they are inflatable, being hit by one will be less painful. 3. They could use the canal system, thus creating extra jobs and revitalizing a sadly neglected part of our Heritage. 3. Electric eels like hovercrafts because of their association with the see, therefore, electric eels should be persuaded to jump start any hovercraft where the battery is dead. 77.
Best meal of the Day It is proposed that we should introduce Asparagus for breakfast. 78.
Mind the manholes In order to reduce polution all cars must have their engines removed, instead they should have holes in the bottom where people can put their feet and run along. This would be a little bit like the flintstones 79.
Women's football To get more men to watch women's football all players should have to swap shirts at the end of games (or better still, every time they kick the ball?) 80.
Rainbow stop It is proposed that we should get rid of three colour traffic lights, and replace it with a much larger spectrum. 81.
Good Morning It should be illegal to wake up prior to 9.00 A.M. Offenders will made to work on a treadmill for 25 hours, and then woken up after 30 mins heavy sleep with a large alarm clock. Thrown at them. The exception to this rule will be Doctors who, will have to work longer hours due to the extra number of reported head injuries 82.
An Englishman's home is his Chateaux It is proposed that everyone in England should buy one hundred square meters (or be subsidized to do so) of France. The English would then own France, saving a lot of arguments, and winning us another UN veto... After owning France, It is proposed that we should rent it back to the French Then we should start on Germany. 83.
Fellowship of the OMRLP It is proposed that being the Lord of the Ring should be illegal. Anyone who owns the Ring should hand it into the capable hands of the OMRLP. From now on, when ever someone disappears, they should be called "Smeagol" or "Gollum" instead of John or Jane Doe. 84.
Harry's Potty As punishment, for their crimes against fiction, Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson and Christopher Columbus (Harry Potter, Hermionie and the director of Harry Potter, respectively) should be made to stand in front of the ridiculous sign in Kings Cross. Platform 3 and 3/4s, 85.
Logical New Industries The energizer should be invented. As should the Enterprise. As should the Vulcan. Don't understand why? Well it is highly illogical... 86.
Working Time Regulations Dr. Who shall be made to work doctors hours, we shall not be biased towards Time Lords. 87.
Computations Canon should be shot. Dell shall be pelted with dill. There should be 5 Pentiums. Why arn't Windows crystal clear? 88.
A Place in History History should be renamed Geography. As in "Right that's it. You're geography!" 89.
Waxing Works Madame Tussaud's should be renamed Ms Tussaud's. 90.
Start Wars Jedi should be recognised as a Religion. Did you know that there are more Jedi's in England than Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, or anything that isn't Hindu, Christian or Muslim. 91.
Not liked It is suggested that we should be xenophobic. But, being English, it isn't practical. 92.
Guard Dogs Guard Dogs shall no longer be permitted.(they're so vicious) It is proposed that they will be replaced with Guard Tortoises, called Shelly. 93.
Olimpix Supermarket Trolley Formation Dancing to be made an Olimpick event. 94.
Health & Wealth All persons born with "a silver spoon in their mouth" will have it surgically removed at birth on the N.H.S This will help to prevent mental illness in later years. i.e. Delusions of Self Importance. 95.
Things going Bad We will set up an inquiry to find out if: (a). Things are really that Bad and (b). They are out to get you 96.
Bon Voyage We will pass a law ordering British Airways flight attendants to CHEER UP! 97.
Keep Fit P.E should be an optional school subject and not permited during winter. (Unless you permit it) 98.
Spectator Sport Cricket will be made more interesting by elliminating the use of padding. (and possibly Cricket Bats)
Notable policies To combat global warming and climate change all buildings should be fitted with air conditioning units on the outside. Make it illegal for super heroes to use their powers for evil. The Loch Ness Monster should be added to the endangered species list. Ozzy Osborne must receive a knighthood. All asylum seekers would be allowed to stay as long as they can tell a good joke
To be fair the BNP are not neo-natzis. They don't agree with the principles of the third Reich and they are not white-supremacists either. Don't get me wrong they are still messed up and have some pretty crazy policies, but i think Nick Griffin's best weapon is that some of the electorate who sympathize with him see him being criticized for other things he's not guilty for rather than what he really should be criticized for. He believes in localized supremacy, so for example he would consider himself a second class citizen in another country the same way he thinks black people and Asian people are second class citizens in England. Also people accusing him for being stupid because he is racist is false as well, he's oxford educated and reasonably intelligent, Hitler was also pretty intelligent too, racism =/ low IQ. The reason he is crazy is because localized supremacy doesn't make any sense and he picks an arbitrary moment, the end of the ice age, for someone to be "truly" British, which makes no sense either. And also he has some other totally misguided views but at least criticize him on what hes actually got wrong, don't fuel his victim card.
On April 22 2010 18:22 Kerotan wrote: He thinks gay men kissing is disgusting, so I would never ever vote for him on that point alone.
I find he comes across as a Christian fundamentalist. He talks about a country that is Christian, British and white. The guy is very misguided and lacks any understanding of history it seems BUT he's not a Nazi.
On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote: I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market.
So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU?
I took issue with it, which is not the same thing. It would only constitute cherry-picking if it misrepresented your position as you outlined it but it is unclear that it does since the quote itself is a fairly straightforward and unequivocal.
I agree it's not true in all cases and we shouldn't cut hard this year.
And this is a modification of your earlier position and contradicts the unequivocal statement that "the sooner you do it the better".
However if you seriously believe that the deficit in this country will go away by itself then I'm sorry but you're in an overwhelming minority of opinion.
I do not believe it will go away by itself, nor have I suggested such. I believe it will decrease as a consequence of an increase in aggregate demand and productive activity in the economy, as it has done countless times before throughout the history of all the nations of the developed world.
Further I do not believe that on this specific point I am in an "overwhelming minority", although given the framing of the issue in the media (which are reflecting the concerns of the political establishment) it may seem that way. As I said earlier, none of this is even outside the spectrum of mainstream economics.
What you're talking about is fantasy land.
Very far from it. In fact nothing I am saying, as I keep pointing out, is even outside the spectrum of mainstream economics on this particular issue, for which plenty of evidence is readily available. The basic issues are well understood: taking measures which reduce aggregate demand (such as overly hasty "austerity measures"), causes a decline in economic activity which reduces tax revenues, drives up welfare payments and thus puts upward pressure on the deficit once more.
On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote: I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market.
So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU?
Pretty sure we do yeah, otherwise it would be pointless being a member of it.
PS. Another issue- people have been talking about lowering the voting age to 16. Personally, that seems ludicrous. I doubt enough 18 year olds even watch know or have time for anything substantial in the political realm. 16 year olds...the thought just boggles my mind. Any thoughts?
On April 22 2010 05:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: It will be interesting to see how Clegg does in the next debate(s)? + Show Spoiler +
The origins of Cleggmania can be traced to last week's televised debate -- a first in Great Britain -- in which Clegg was widely considered to have stolen the show from the leaders of Britain's two largest political parties: current Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the Labour Party, and Conservative Party leader David Cameron. The headline the next day in the London Times read "Clegg comes of age." A poll taken after the debate led the Guardian to declare that "Clegg is now in contention as potential PM."
To top it off, the latest YouGov poll shows the Liberal Democrats to now be in the lead with 34 percent of the vote. The Conservative Party came in second with 31 percent. A week ago the Liberal Dems were hovering around 16 percent. Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Dish referred to the poll result as "the earthquake in Britain." John Curtice of the Independent has called the Liberal Dems' surge "the biggest shock to the electoral landscape in years."
The next debate is on SkyNews (a channel relatively unwatched by the masses and only avaliable on digital tv) and will (I believe) probably only manage about 5 million views, half the previous. It is also focused on economics which I would say is the Lib Dems strong points if Clegg can just repeat the things talked about by Vince Cable in the chancellors debate a few weeks ago (which Cable was said to have "won" I'd imagine he'd "win" again, though Cameron/Brown will probably be far more critical of the Clegg in the next debate since they have seen the power hes supposedly gained from playing the "man on the outside" in the last one.
ughhh sorry for double post
.
Scrap that it seems as though tommorows debate is on foreign policy. It'd be hard to see Brown coming out poorly in this one simply due to his experience.
His claims about meeting every army demand for funds simply aren't true (but how could they be when the army is a black hole that'll spend whatever you give it). I expect Cameron to lay into him about requests which were refused while he was Chancellor, for while his record has been somewhat better in the last few years he cannot escape the fact that he has controlled the budget for 13 years. As the incumbent he cannot strike back at their records and his own is vulnerable.
Thats a fair point, but I'd have to say Clegg will probably do well in the public's eyes due to the dropping of the trident missile defense system plans.
I took issue with it, which is not the same thing. It would only constitute cherry-picking if it misrepresented your position as you outlined it but it is unclear that it does since the quote itself is a fairly straightforward and unequivocal.
However if you seriously believe that the deficit in this country will go away by itself then I'm sorry but you're in an overwhelming minority of opinion.
I do not believe it will go away by itself, nor have I suggested such. I believe it will decrease as a consequence of an increase in aggregate demand and productive activity in the economy, as it has done countless times before throughout the history of all the nations of the developed world.
Further I do not believe that on this specific point I am in an "overwhelming minority", although given the framing of the issue in the media (which are reflecting the concerns of the political establishment) it may seem that way. As I said earlier, none of this is even outside the spectrum of mainstream economics.
Very far from it. In fact nothing I am saying, as I keep pointing out, is even outside the spectrum of mainstream economics on this particular issue, for which plenty of evidence is readily available. The basic issues are well understood: taking measures which reduce aggregate demand (such as overly hasty "austerity measures"), causes a decline in economic activity which reduces tax revenues, drives up welfare payments and thus puts upward pressure on the deficit once more.
If the evidence is readily available I would like you to point to one position in history where a deficit nearly as large as ours was removed without taxation or spending cuts.
Keynesian economics is very clear that spending during a recession is a good idea. But he famously argued that governments should solve problems in the short run rather than waiting for market forces to do it in the long run, because "in the long run, we are all dead." The other half of the cycle is that during the boom time a Government should increase taxes or cut spending to supress inflation and reduce or remove debt. The saving side of the cycle was ignored by our current Government. They borrowed money every year when times were good.... simply to pay for services we couldn't afford. Now some of those things were investment, which is good. Keynes would agree that some investment can mean greater long term output. The problem is a great deal of spending is NOT investment. It's jobs for the sake of jobs that we couldn't afford in 2005 when Brown hailed "Britain's new economic stability" and we certainly can't afford it now.
Edit: Is it not true that to suggest all cuts would be bad you are implying that every public job is an investment that increases long term output. I simply cannot fathom that to be true. If you got rid of a useless job you would not lose more in tax and unemployment benefits than you gained in not employing them.
On April 22 2010 21:05 Klive5ive wrote: If the evidence is readily available I would like you to point to one position in history where a deficit nearly as large as ours was removed without taxation or spending cuts.
Just going back to the 1970s , still in the UK. The debt/GDP ratio was smaller but Britain was still forced to go cap in hand to the IMF. The 70s were also remembered as a time of high inflation.
The only thing that saved the UK's ass was north sea oil which has pretty much run out. You will find that is what was keeping the pound relatively high as well , expect a sharp correction within the next few years. No matter who is in the UK finances are in a shambles , Labour did serious damage to them the past 13 years.
If the evidence is readily available I would like you to...
As a cursory review of my post demonstrates, I said evidence was "readily available" to establish that the position I am taking is within the spectrum of mainstream economic opinion. You appear to have misread it.
Keynesian economics is very clear that...
I would not classify myself as a Keynesian. Further, none of the Keynesian references you make bear at all on the straightforward point I have made twice previously and make a third time here: that overly hasty austerity measures will themselves place upward pressure on the deficit.
Is it not true that to suggest all cuts would be bad you are implying that every public job is an investment that increases long term output.
No. Nor is there a direct connection between government deficits and "public jobs" (by which it is generally meant jobs in the public sector), another establishment meme which appears to have penetrated the public consciousness to the point where it squeezes out rational debate. My own personal preference would be for, among other things, major infrastructure projects which would assist in securing the long term economic situation of our country.
On April 22 2010 21:28 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: on the straightforward point I have made twice previously and make a third time here: that overly hasty austerity measures will themselves place upward pressure on the deficit.
I've never disagreed with that, nor would it be possible to disagree with that. By putting the word "overly" in there you've made it true by definition. Any sensible hasty austerity measure would be not be "overly" hasty.
On April 22 2010 21:28 Arbiter[frolix] wrote: No. Nor is there a direct connection between government deficits and "public jobs", another establishment meme which appears to have penetrated the public consciousness to the point where it squeezes out rational debate. My own personal preference, among others, would be for major infrastructure projects which would assist in securing the long term economic situation of our country.
Ironically you are correct that it has squeezed out rational debate because you largely ignored what I said and made another point entirely. My personal preference would also be major infrastructure projects but how can we afford them without first reducing non-investment spending? I'm sure the IMF would be not be too pleased if we attempted to convince them we can reduce our debt 20 years from now whilst spending even more right now. Eventually we'd reach a run off point where the servicing of our debt would be more than we could feasibly cut back (if indeed we have not already reached that point).
I think we've reached the conclusion of our discussion. I'll summarise my position and if you would kindly do the same after you reply to this we can move on to other things.
Due to boom-time over spending and spending in areas that don't increase long term output (let's call it non-investment spending) we went into the recession with a deficit and large debt. During a recession the only sensible thing to do is to try to stimulate growth and we were forced to bail the banks out too. This further increased the debt and our deficit. We are now in a position where the deficit is far too large to reduce my stimulating growth alone. Sensible measures to increase future output are essential but they must also be backed up by spending cuts in sensible areas. The quicker we cut non-investment spending the quicker the economy will recover. Although unemployment would rise the public sector would expand to fill parts of the gaps increasing tax revenue. The disadvantages of a person not being employed are outweighed by the advantages of not paying their wages. As for tax increases they are dangerous to a recovery and non-essential cuts should always be favoured but ultimately if we are serious about reducing our debts some tax increases could be a sensible idea. If we don't appear to be serious about repaying our debts then the pound may fall drastically.
On April 22 2010 21:52 noddyz wrote: Papers are hilarious today. 'Clegg in Nazi slur on UK' followed by the usual daily mail crap.
Volcanoe saved the lib dems for a week. Their getting attacked from all sides today though.
Hilarious indeed, from the BBC:
Mr Clegg, whose popularity was on a par with Winston Churchill according to one headline last week, said: "I have done nothing wrong. In the next few days I will publish figures to prove it.
"There are a lot of people who want to stop change, of course. I think I must be the only politician in the space of a week to go from Churchill to Nazi."
He added there was a "very exciting opportunity for something different" adding: "I hope people won't be bullied, be frightened into not choosing something different."
I think I might play a game during the next debate, see who can pick the most frequently repeated key phrase. Will it be: Clegg: "something different" "Old politics" Cameron: "Jobs tax" "real change" Brown: "substance" "focusing on policy" "Tory cuts" "is falling" (crime, immgration etc..) All of them: "wide open" (about the election) "bureaucracy" Any more?
I've never disagreed with that, nor would it be possible to disagree with that. By putting the word "overly" in there you've made it true by definition. Any sensible hasty austerity measure would be not be "overly" hasty.
And so we are back to the question of when the deficit will be reduced. My position on it is quite plain. Not yet. Since this would have a deleterious effect on the economic recovery and put upward pressure on the deficit yet again. In this I find myself in the unusual position of being on the same side as the IMF and a large number of mainstream economists.
Ironically you are correct that it has squeezed out rational debate because you largely ignored what I said and made another point entirely.
Actually if you review the posts you will see that you asked a question and I answered it with the word "no". I did not feel it necessary to address the supplementary point you made and chose to make a related one of my own.
I'm sure the IMF would be not be too pleased if we attempted to convince them we can reduce our debt 20 years from now whilst spending even more right now. Eventually we'd reach a run off point where the servicing of our debt would be more than we could feasibly cut back (if indeed we have not already reached that point).
I do not see that the sovereign British government has to convince the IMF of anything at all.
The point about servicing debt would take us into a more intricate economic discussion, in an area in which I hold more to certain heterodox economic views (such as Modern Monetary Theory of economists like Bill Mitchell and L Randall Wray). A discussion for another day, perhaps.
As for tax increases they are dangerous to a recovery and non-essential cuts should always be favoured but ultimately if we are serious about reducing our debts some tax increases could be a sensible idea.
I agree entirely with regard to the tax increases, which I think would be a very bad idea at present.
The only way to actually reduce the public debt would be to run a budget surplus. I do not expect to see anything even resembling a budget surplus for quite some time.
But yes, I think this conversation has pretty much run its course.
On April 22 2010 22:11 Klive5ive wrote: I think I might play a game during the next debate, see who can pick the most frequently repeated key phrase.
I don't want to be confrontational but have you ever paused to think how difficult it must be to stand up in front of the nation day in day out and talk sense again and again and again without repeating yourself from time to time? And how difficult it must be to get a specific message to the public if they do what most people do which is flick in, flick out, get tea, eat food loudly, chat to each other whilst people are talking?
I never understood this barbaric anti-politicianism. It seems to be cultural more than rational. If you want to hear a politician talk without 'key phrases', wait for them to give interviews on serious radio shows or straight talk with Andrew Neil; especially after they have been in power.
I personally think that people slag off MPs far too much without considering how bloody difficult their jobs are. Having to argue and debate all the time without making any slip ups, as well as trying to get things done behind the scenes and do it all for the amount of pay that a relatively poor-off headteacher gets isn't exactly my idea of a walk in the park.
I may have gone over the top because I'm sure you were joking but I have always thought MPs get a little too much stick just for doing what obviously makes sense and what anyone else would do in their situation.
On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote: I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market.
So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU?
You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips.
On April 22 2010 23:56 sc4k wrote: PS. FUcking hung parliaments: How do they work??
The same as any other. It's an evolved system, the word PM started off as a derisive term for any MP with sufficient sway among his peers to dominate politics. Factions have always formed groupings in Parliament to try and get legislation working. If a single party faction cannot form a Government then they will argue among themselves to try and form a coalition. If they cannot make up their mind then the Queen will call a new election.
On April 22 2010 18:22 Kerotan wrote: He thinks gay men kissing is disgusting, so I would never ever vote for him on that point alone.
I find he comes across as a Christian fundamentalist. He talks about a country that is Christian, British and white. The guy is very misguided and lacks any understanding of history it seems BUT he's not a Nazi.
Statistically Britain is athiest. Also “..the BNP's proposals to safeguard Britain from further terrorist attack include the banning of any further immigration from Pakistan and similar Islamic countries, the removal of Muslims from sensitive employment (such as in water treatment plants and chemistry and biology laboratories in universities), and the confiscation of the passports of all male Muslims living in Britain between the ages of 15 - 40 in order to stop them travelling to religious indoctrination schools and terrorist training camps in Islamic countries, as an estimated 3,000 have already done.” That's from the BNP website. yeah...
On April 22 2010 23:56 sc4k wrote: PS. FUcking hung parliaments: How do they work??
The same as any other. It's an evolved system, the word PM started off as a derisive term for any MP with sufficient sway among his peers to dominate politics. Factions have always formed groupings in Parliament to try and get legislation working. If a single party faction cannot form a Government then they will argue among themselves to try and form a coalition. If they cannot make up their mind then the Queen will call a new election.
Actually I was referring to the ICP you might want to check Boesthius blog
As a Londonner living in the music business, I found a very good way to keep sleeping without having nightmares from the idea that tories could get back in power: I leave this city and UK and get back to where there is no way that we have some Tatcher Reloaded in power.
I hope the best for Lib Dem, they still seem to be the one who have the most common sense. People in England are utterly disppointed by Labour (which is explanable, they have screwed everybody in the arse for 10 years), and I can tell from what I hear about me that almost everybody working in culture is massively scared by the idea that Cameron may get into power.
I've seen a conductor doing a political speech before a concert because he was so worried about the outcome of this election. I had never seen that in my life. It just doesn't happen.
On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote: I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market.
So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU?
You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips.
I'm not trying to advocate a UKIP anti-EU stance. I'm simply looking for some facts about how the EU actually benefits our economy. I am just wondering because no one ever says it. I saw an Independent article about what is the EU giving us, and there were 50 options and most of them looked pretty soft. I realise 13 billion isn't much but then again we need to cut the budget deficit and every little helps. It's almost the entire amount the Lib Dems want to pledge on further efficiency savings on Labour's current efficiency savings.
I read about France being forced to buy British meat by the EU even when the US has an embargo. I guess that is a good example which would probably have benefitted our country greatly.
On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote: I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market.
So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU?
You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips.
I'm not trying to advocate a UKIP anti-EU stance. I'm simply looking for some facts about how the EU actually benefits our economy. I am just wondering because no one ever says it. I saw an Independent article about what is the EU giving us, and there were 50 options and most of them looked pretty soft. I realise 13 billion isn't much but then again we need to cut the budget deficit and every little helps. It's almost the entire amount the Lib Dems want to pledge on further efficiency savings on Labour's current efficiency savings.
People say that in France too.
The only thing is that I don't see why it's bad that Poland or Slovenia benefit the economy of my country, for two reasons:
1- Because the fact that theses countries get a better economy, with our help, is a guarantee for the future. The best which can happen to us is that Eastern Europ get prospere and rich in the future decades. Without European help, they won't (egoism apart, that's just long term thinking).
2- Because I feel like a European citizen and, the same way that I would find normal that a rich portion of France helps a poorer area to get richer, I find good that rich European countries help the poorest one to get to a good economical standart (that's more personnal, and I would say the same about anywhere in the world, but whatever).
On April 22 2010 07:11 sc4k wrote: I want to throw out another general question for any Brits to help me on. Can anyone give me some concrete facts about how being in the EU is good for our country? I hear a lot of invective from UKIP and anti-EU ppl but usually most knowledgeable people just shrug off the comments; it doesn't help people like me who really are clueless on the issue.
EU has protectionist tariffs that make trading with EU nations hard for outsiders. We're geographically forced to trade with the EU. Therefore it is hugely economically beneficial to be within it. All the arguments about the continental level being practical for energy, trade, environmental, fishing management are also good but the main one is economic. Britain has always benefitted economically from being within the European single market.
So do you reckon Britain gains anything close to the something like £13 billion we pay to the EU from our budget by being in the EU?
You realise 13 billion is absolutely nothing in terms of the GDP of a country. We gain far, far more than that lol. 13 billion is 2% of our budget and that doesn't take into account that a lot of that money comes back. Parts of Britain have always recieved regional development funds and British farmers have always benefited from CAP. People seem to have this idea the EU takes all the money and spends it on paperclips.
I'm not trying to advocate a UKIP anti-EU stance. I'm simply looking for some facts about how the EU actually benefits our economy. I am just wondering because no one ever says it. I saw an Independent article about what is the EU giving us, and there were 50 options and most of them looked pretty soft. I realise 13 billion isn't much but then again we need to cut the budget deficit and every little helps. It's almost the entire amount the Lib Dems want to pledge on further efficiency savings on Labour's current efficiency savings.
Leaving the EU is a nonsense. When the European Coal and Steel Community was first created Britain refused to join, placing her future in Empire rather than Europe. However with the decline of the British Empire and the rise of Europe Britain found itself forced into to trade with Europe by reasons of geography. Since joining the EU that has expanded and the British economy is now completely intertwined with Europe. You couldn't tear them apart without inflicting huge damage on the British economy. Every company which moves goods to and from Europe would see huge increases in their costs which the market quite simply couldn't handle. It'd take a complete restructuring of the British economy to become more autarkic and even if that were possible (which it's not) it'd be way more expensive. It would shut the economy down completely. The problem with the EU is that Britain didn't join it soon enough. As the least fucked up country after WWII we could have created it in a British model rather than joining a Franco-Germanic system. That and the political aspect of it. We signed up for the European Single Market and it keeps getting political stuff added to it.
So just so I can get it in some easily graspable examples, leaving the EU would do what for our trade with Europe and our economy? Higher prices, no trade, potentially smaller skilled workforce etc?
When you say leaving the EU is a nonsense, I hear this all the time from people. I don't doubt it, but if I try to tell my UKIP supporting friend it is a nonsense, he'll ask me why and I just don't know lol. Are you saying that if we were to leave, our economy would collapse and our industries would be less profitable?
On April 23 2010 00:37 sc4k wrote: So just so I can get it in some easily graspable examples, leaving the EU would do what for our trade with Europe and our economy? Higher prices, no trade, potentially smaller skilled workforce etc?
When you say leaving the EU is a nonsense, I hear this all the time from people. I don't doubt it, but if I try to tell my UKIP supporting friend it is a nonsense, he'll ask me why and I just don't know lol. Are you saying that if we were to leave, our economy would collapse and our industries would be less profitable?
Damn near every single country in the UK imports or exports something from the EU. Most in some indirect capacity. Take a cleaning company, the cleaning supplies they bulk buy may come from Europe. Or a building contracter who uses imported wood or bricks. Somewhere along the line everyone buys something from the EU, not because they can only get it in Europe but because it's usually cheaper to import something from abroad than to produce it in the UK. If you then left the EU all of those links would be cut. If it were at all possible to simply buy from elsewhere immediately then you'd just see a large increase in prices as that happened (because the reason we import from Europe atm is because it's cheaper than elsewhere). However the UK uses quite a lot of stuff, more stuff than there is surplus on the international market. Thus you would have shortages and massive price rises that effect every part of the economy. Plus there's the cost of every business in the country having to reforge these links. That'd be pretty huge. Plus there's the death of every business involved in direct import and export with the EU.
Imagine the England Scotland border got completely closed down. How much of what Scotland needs do they actually produce in Scotland? How long before businesses couldn't get raw materials, shops couldn't get anything to sell. We're not just talking about the direct stuff, take something like paper, if Scotland didn't have enough paper mills every business with paperwork would be forced to import paper from abroad at higher prices or go without. Imagine how many businesses that'd fuck up.
Basically when you create a single market, like the EU is, businesses treat it as a single market. It's like a giant tangled ball with threads going from everyone to everyone. Even a business that doesn't directly rely on Europe will be linked to another business that does. If you tear that tangled ball apart it rips it to pieces. Every day that Britain has been part of the single market it becomes harder to leave, and we've been part of it for a while now.
Ok thanks for the explanation, I understand what you're saying. But let me get this straight: you compared leaving the EU to closing the border to Scotland. Would there ever be a way to leave the EU but continue to trade with the EU as before, or would the EU essentially be *mad* we left and therefore prevent us trading at cheap prices? I'm also curious as to how Norway and Switzerland profit as countries- are they paying more money per imported item than us from EU countries, by not being in the EU? Does being in the EU give us special access to surplus in the European countries? And when you are talking about surplus are you mostly talking about food?
On April 23 2010 00:56 sc4k wrote: Ok thanks for the explanation, I understand what you're saying. But let me get this straight: you compared leaving the EU to closing the border to Scotland. Would there ever be a way to leave the EU but continue to trade with the EU as before, or would the EU essentially be *mad* we left and therefore prevent us trading at cheap prices? I'm also curious as to how Norway and Switzerland profit as countries- are they paying more money per imported item than us from EU countries, by not being in the EU? Does being in the EU give us special access to surplus in the European countries? And when you are talking about surplus are you mostly talking about food?
Switzerland has a special arrangement with the EU for tariff exemption because not giving it one would be geographic economic blackmail. In theory the UK could ask for that, in practice I have no idea if it'd be granted. What I meant by surplus is that if we previously bought 10,000 units of example X from Europe and were made subject to the external tariff we could only switch to importing 10,000 units of X from somewhere else if there were already the units on the market. Which assumes that somewhere in America there's a big factory pumping out X without a buyer, just for kicks. If we could immediately start buying from that factory instead then it'd just be a small increase in cost (the reason we were buying from the EU in the first place was that it was cheaper than America). However if the factory doesn't exist, and it doesn't, then you get a shortage and therefore price rises. Replace X with everything.
Hahah Klive in the first 5 minutes basically everything you thought they'd say have already been said
But it's true the other guy said, it's not like there's a lot of other things they say, especially when they say the same thing all the time to the media
On April 23 2010 04:04 TonyL2 wrote: It's starting!
Hahah Klive in the first 5 minutes basically everything you thought they'd say have already been said
But it's true the other guy said, it's not like there's a lot of other things they say, especially when they say the same thing all the time to the media
Yeah I was only kidding, as he said.
So far it's been a much better debate. Cameron and Brown are doing a lot better and aren't arguing between each other. I think it's pretty much equal so far.
On immigration, why does everyone skip by the fact that the government already has extremely tight controls on getting into this country UNLESS you are from the EU in which case they have absolutely no control and no one will have any substantial control? It seems that the Tories skip by this every time. They wouldn't have any control, right now David Cameron is talking about taking control; I don't see how they will be able to do that? Are they allowed to make new agreements with the EU like the Schengen agreements the other countries made and limit the amount of, say, Poles allowed into the UK?
It seems the only change the UK has of regaining any kind of respect from the European people is a drastic political change. The british government have sold out their people on all all accounts for decades, and involved britain in an illegal war they can't get out of. The only way this can change is if the British National Party gains more votes, forcing a political change in the nation!
The mainstream political parties have no ideological willpower, and will continue to make britain darker and more involved with the EU. The only real political change in the UK is through the BNP or the UKIP (to a lesser extent).
I hope you can save your nation from its doom, and wish you the best of luck in the upcoming election. Friendly greetings from Scandinavia. =)
I've got to give this to Cameron in terms of the debate but it's still going to end up coming out in the favour of the Lib Dems. In the first debate Nick Clegg was inserted into the public consciousness and because of that the other two were forced to confront him today as a serious threat. This is truly a three party contest now.
Great, another nutjob who doesn't know anything about our politics and wants us to vote in the most ridiculous options possible. Thanks for your retarded opinion guy. (PS allowed to be rude to ppl who support BNP)
I personally gave the debate to G brown because he speaks with authority and knows some good stuff. I though Cameron was a lot better and Clegg was boring me already.
On April 23 2010 05:36 Athelthral wrote: I've got to give this to Cameron in terms of the debate but it's still going to end up coming out in the favour of the Lib Dems. In the first debate Nick Clegg was inserted into the public consciousness and because of that the other two were forced to confront him today as a serious threat. This is truly a three party contest now.
Indeed it is and it's fantastic. If only we'd had these debates years ago.
Edit: YouGov says Cameron won, but it was close this time between all 3. Cameron first and Clegg second, good news imo.
Here's some of the great quotes from the leader of your favorite party the BNP Perfect Balance:
“I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that six million Jews were gassed and cremated or turned into lampshades. Orthodox opinion also once held that the earth is flat…I have reached the conclusion that the ‘extermination’ tale is a mixture of Allied wartime propaganda, extremely profitable lie, and latter day witch-hysteria.”
"Yes, Adolf went a bit too far."
"I'm not in politics for cheap cheers; if I was I could probably have had a safe Tory seat years ago. I'm in it, among other things, because I want to help stop the immigration which is destroying this and every other white nation in the world. Then I want to see that deadly tide turned. I want to see Britain become the 99 per cent genetically white country she was just eleven years before I was born, and I want to die knowing that I have helped to set her on a course whereby her future genetic makeup will one day not even resemble that of January 1948, but that of July 1914. Nothing will ever turn me from working towards that final vision."
"I'm not the only person who finds two grown men kissing in public really creepy."
“The TV footage of dozens of gay demonstrators flaunting their perversions in front of the world’s journalists showed just why so many ordinary people find these creatures so repulsive.”
I guess those quotes show that the BNP are really "The only real political change", towards a fascist and xenophobic and homophobic Britain.
36% Cameron, 32% Clegg, 29% Brown according to yougov which seems about right to me. I'm loving the BBC getting all the single issue parties on to complain about being marginalised.
lol yeah. SNP Plaid Cymru UKIP and even the BNP. Not sure it's fair to call the SNP and Plaid Cymru single issue though. But still funny how disparaging they all try to be.
On April 23 2010 05:34 Perfect Balance wrote: It seems the only change the UK has of regaining any kind of respect from the European people is a drastic political change. The british government have sold out their people on all all accounts for decades, and involved britain in an illegal war they can't get out of. The only way this can change is if the British National Party gains more votes, forcing a political change in the nation!
The mainstream political parties have no ideological willpower, and will continue to make britain darker and more involved with the EU. The only real political change in the UK is through the BNP or the UKIP (to a lesser extent).
I hope you can save your nation from its doom, and wish you the best of luck in the upcoming election. Friendly greetings from Scandinavia. =)
I loved that 3 of the reps for the parties were just arguing non stop and the reporter just sat back, that would never happen in American Political Television.
On April 23 2010 06:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: I lauged so hard. How to make every Briton / European on the forum rage hard. If it's trolling, it's a genius one.
Good trolling is one or two sentences (minimum effort) getting lots of people to respond seriously with a larger size post. He failed to do that. Failed miserably. Firstly, he probably wasn't trolling, he probably is just retarded, and secondly that's a troll fail. Keep trolling and troll-encouraging out of this discussion too plz.
Browny wrecked face for me today, cameron just pissed me off every time he spoke as usual with his crappy ' i met so and so yesterday' line that comes out every five minutes.
Evens in my opinion, which is probably good for all them. Improvment for Cameron, Clegg only needs to hold his current position to have a amazing election and Brown engaged a hell of allot better than he did before. Interesting times.
Still don't like any of them though and still agree with so little that i can't bring myself to vote for any of them.
On April 23 2010 06:10 Biff The Understudy wrote: I lauged so hard. How to make every Briton / European on the forum rage hard. If it's trolling, it's a genius one.
Good trolling is one or two sentences (minimum effort) getting lots of people to respond seriously with a larger size post. He failed to do that. Failed miserably. Firstly, he probably wasn't trolling, he probably is just retarded, and secondly that's a troll fail. Keep trolling and troll-encouraging out of this discussion too plz.
Point is, the guy was not trolling at all. I always prefer to laugh than to kill myself when I read stuff like that.
On April 23 2010 06:33 noddyz wrote: Evens in my opinion, which is probably good for all them. Improvment for Cameron, Clegg only needs to hold his current position to have a amazing election and Brown engaged a hell of allot better than he did before. Interesting times.
Still don't like any of them though and still agree with so little that i can't bring myself to vote for any of them.
It happens so often in Democracy that you end up voting for the least horribad rather than for the best. Believe me, last French presidential election was like chosing between plague or cholera.
On April 23 2010 06:33 noddyz wrote: Evens in my opinion, which is probably good for all them. Improvment for Cameron, Clegg only needs to hold his current position to have a amazing election and Brown engaged a hell of allot better than he did before. Interesting times.
Still don't like any of them though and still agree with so little that i can't bring myself to vote for any of them.
It happens so often in Democracy that you end up voting for the least horribad rather than for the best. Believe me, last French presidential election was like chosing between plague or cholera.
If that debates to be believed then if we could just have the plague, cholera and cancer all working together we'll all be in perfect health.
On April 23 2010 07:51 sc4k wrote: Apparently most of the polls have Clegg winning and Cameron close behind, one major poll used by the Sun has Cameron slightly ahead of Clegg.
Yes you're right; the majority of the polls have now put Clegg ahead again.
I don't know why people ever thought Cameron was good at speeches, I've almost found him to be a bit of a twit when he tries to explain things. Clegg is better.
On April 23 2010 07:51 sc4k wrote: Apparently most of the polls have Clegg winning and Cameron close behind, one major poll used by the Sun has Cameron slightly ahead of Clegg.
On April 23 2010 07:51 sc4k wrote: Apparently most of the polls have Clegg winning and Cameron close behind, one major poll used by the Sun has Cameron slightly ahead of Clegg.
Yes you're right; the majority of the polls have now put Clegg ahead again.
I don't know why people ever thought Cameron was good at speeches, I've almost found him to be a bit of a twit when he tries to explain things. Clegg is better.
Have you seen him on PMQs? He's usually quite devastating and fast on his feet. Clegg is generally shit in PMQs even though he only gets 2 questions.
On April 23 2010 07:51 sc4k wrote: Apparently most of the polls have Clegg winning and Cameron close behind, one major poll used by the Sun has Cameron slightly ahead of Clegg.
Yes you're right; the majority of the polls have now put Clegg ahead again.
I don't know why people ever thought Cameron was good at speeches, I've almost found him to be a bit of a twit when he tries to explain things. Clegg is better.
Have you seen him on PMQs? He's usually quite devastating and fast on his feet. Clegg is generally shit in PMQs even though he only gets 2 questions.
Yeah but PMQs is a farce. Cameron might look good attacking Brown's policies but then that's not exactly a difficult task.
I just watched Question time on the BBC, it was really good for a change. They had some decent politicians on the panel: Menzies Campbell, Yvette Cooper and William Hague. Watch it on Iplayer if you get chance.
Watched it live, as I often do . It was okay, better than the fucking episodes when it was all bankers bankers bankers or expenses expenses expenses yarh yarh yarh.
In terms of PMQs, whatever you think about it, it requires fast wits and a lot of confidence. It seems that Cameron is better at playing the viper in debates rather than the lion.
Right now on BBC one they are discussing hung parliaments. I'm still not convinced that they are automatically a bad thing. Cases can be made for either way, it seems.
Cameron on Paxman just finished. Interesting questions and answers. Cameron did decently well but not brilliant. He tried to justify his inheritance tax lift which I think is pretty much undefendable. Of all the tax cuts you could make that one is just stupid. How can the Conservatives say they've changed when they still make stupid decisions like that? He did well on the economy in general though, explaining how they laid out spending cuts during the 2005 election which were ignored and Paxman did seem to agree that the economy would be better off if the Conservatives had been in power. He didn't rule out a VAT increase in the next budget though, which I thought was bizarre. I don't understand why he didn't give a straight answer, instead of just saying "no" he said "we have no plans to increase VAT in the next budget". But of course Paxman just jumped on that.
Poll: Thoughts on Nigel Farage trying to steal John Bercow's seat?
wtf no gtfo Farage (4)
57%
Ha, go for it! (2)
29%
I hate British politics (1)
14%
7 total votes
Your vote: Thoughts on Nigel Farage trying to steal John Bercow's seat?
(Vote): Ha, go for it! (Vote): wtf no gtfo Farage (Vote): I hate British politics
Well I'm no British person and UKIP sounds like a party I wouldn't like even if I were, but this Farage guy is hilarious
He was just born to deliver these tirades. Just compare these two over here:
Now maybe one was more factual than the other, but clearly one of these men knows how to deliver a tirade well and one of them doesn't. You'd be no patriot of your country if you couldn't ensure a seat for Mr.Farage!
On April 24 2010 05:45 Klive5ive wrote: He tried to justify his inheritance tax lift which I think is pretty much undefendable.
I dunno. I think inheritance tax is pretty much disgraceful in principle. The ability to pass on what you've earned do your kids is pretty huge imo. At present you have rich kids being essentially told that they have to earn and save hundreds of thousands of pounds for the taxman just to pass on to their kids what they were given. Now I don't particularly care for the rich but I do think that's really shitty.
On April 24 2010 05:45 Klive5ive wrote: He tried to justify his inheritance tax lift which I think is pretty much undefendable.
I dunno. I think inheritance tax is pretty much disgraceful in principle. The ability to pass on what you've earned do your kids is pretty huge imo. At present you have rich kids being essentially told that they have to earn and save hundreds of thousands of pounds for the taxman just to pass on to their kids what they were given. Now I don't particularly care for the rich but I do think that's really shitty.
I didn't think any body supported the inheritance tax. It's a stupid idea to just take a whole bunch of someone's money when they die. They've not worked all their life to give a portion of their savings and earnings to the government. They've been doing that their entire life.
On April 24 2010 05:45 Klive5ive wrote: He tried to justify his inheritance tax lift which I think is pretty much undefendable.
I dunno. I think inheritance tax is pretty much disgraceful in principle. The ability to pass on what you've earned do your kids is pretty huge imo. At present you have rich kids being essentially told that they have to earn and save hundreds of thousands of pounds for the taxman just to pass on to their kids what they were given. Now I don't particularly care for the rich but I do think that's really shitty.
I didn't think any body supported the inheritance tax. It's a stupid idea to just take a whole bunch of someone's money when they die. They've not worked all their life to give a portion of their savings and earnings to the government. They've been doing that their entire life.
That sounds like an argument against Tax in general or against balancing the tax system to make it fair. Tax is also about incentives. What inheritance tax does is encourage people to spend their money and spend it the way THEY want to. There are plenty of rich kids who gain money from relatives they never even knew, whilst other young people don't have that advantage. If you're close with your family then they can spend the money with you while they can.
I'm one of the people who will lose out from this tax since both my grand-parents would fall into the threshold... but I would rather they spend their money now on taking care of themselves rather than passing it to me, because quite frankly, I don't deserve it.
Here is the original encounter. Basically she implied that immigrants were taking benefits and that people who deserve them can't get them. Around 2.15 or so "People who aren't vulnerable are claiming benefits and those that are vulnerable cant...It's the.. you can't say anything about these immigrants, but all these Eastern Europeans that are coming in, where are they flocking from?"
But will let you decide for yourselves.
There is also a reaction on her part afterwards, link on the page. She just ignores that she was giving out about immigrants and pretends she was talking solely about the national debt. Maybe she should become a politician
On April 28 2010 22:11 Reach_UK wrote: Was she actually a bigot? I cant find scuffle they had just before that video.
BTW if anyone says 'bigotgate', I will kill you.
Well she's a stout Labour supporter so ironically yes! But bigoted in FAVOR of Brown. She'd already chosen Labour on her postal vote (despite her issues with the economy and immigration) but has now said she wont send it.
There are plenty of rich kids who gain money from relatives they never even knew, whilst other young people don't have that advantage. If you're close with your family then they can spend the money with you while they can.
The principle behind inheritance, whether of money or of rank, is not "fairness" but that an individual's labours may transcend his mortality, thereby giving a man's life continuity and meaning beyond the boundaries of birth and death. To rationalize the destruction of these most basic social bonds by a double subterfuge of assuming their impotence on one hand, and seeking to distribute those bonds indiscriminately to all humanity on the other, is to base castles on clouds.
I also don't see, given the UK's low household savings rate, and in light of her present public deficit problem, how it could be productive to encourage private spending. Surely the opposite is needed.
Final debate tommorow, whos pumped? it seems like all the parties are generally going to come out terribly with the latest fairly (to most people) expected and previously ignored about tax rises needed in the next government. However I can't help but think Clegg should have the upperhand in this debate, he has (in my opinion) the best chancellor candidate behind him so how can he do badly?
Also I have to say Hannan's speech in the post a little earlier is in my opinion a more powerful one than Farage's ramblings, though thats just me.
I completely agree with Brown and I can understand why he's pissed. Obviously he's a hugely busy man at the moment as PM, leader of a divided political party and a contestant in a general election. He has a team behind him trying to win that election, trying to put him in the best light, frame public interviews in which he answers reasonable questions from people the voters can relate to. Someone fucked up and instead he is put in a room with a bigoted woman who says Labour no longer satisfy her paranoia. He can either agree with her that immigrants are to blame or he can tell her she's a crazy xenophobe. It's a situation that never should have come up and if I was Brown I'd have come out of it hugely pissed off. I'd have had a similiar rant about how it's a waste of time to stick me in a room with a bigot and I could easily have forgotten the mic. The only thing about it I find annoying is his faux repentence but that's an electoral necessity because the bigot vote is one everyone is courting. This has actually made me like Brown more.
Absolutely agree with you Kwark. And same result for me as for you lol. I always liked Brown anyway, I sympathize with serious people.
As far as who I'm voting for...still interesting:
1. conservatives because I agree with them on education, policing and welfare
2. Greens because Caroline Lucas probably does deserve to be in parliament
3. Lib Dem because potentially a hung parliament and a change in the voting system would be a big change for our country, and might be interesting , something to tell the kids that I was there
4. Labour because I agree with their general social policy and philosophy
On April 28 2010 23:26 MoltkeWarding wrote: The principle behind inheritance, whether of money or of rank, is not "fairness" but that an individual's labours may transcend his mortality, thereby giving a man's life continuity and meaning beyond the boundaries of birth and death. To rationalize the destruction of these most basic social bonds by a double subterfuge of assuming their impotence on one hand, and seeking to distribute those bonds indiscriminately to all humanity on the other, is to base castles on clouds.
This argument will never work for me. It is fluffy and abstract. No one needs or deserves more than an inheritance of something like £100k. Everything else should be taxed, not cripplingly but pretty hard. Especially over 1m. Any ridiculous arguments about transcending morality and breaking the boundaries between life and death just pale in comparison to providing healthcare and policing for all. Couldn't care less about the choices of the rich ppl who want to give lil Johnny boy £10m. Seriously, couldn't give one shit. Johnny boy's not in any trouble.
20 minutes til the final debate. Will anyone mention Duffygate? Will anyone go against the rules and break the format? This is it, crunch time.
On April 30 2010 01:59 sc4k wrote: I always liked Brown
I just can't understand how anyone could say that.
As chancellor he made grave errors with public finances. Then he bullied his way into power without being voted in. Then he bottled out of an election and hung on to power as long as possible; despite the vast majority of the public wanting him to go. He frequently misleads the public and refuses to ever admit when he's wrong. As I said before I would almost admire his tenacity if he actually had any of this so called substance he rattles on about. His credibility is shot yet he hangs on by his teeth.
His errors as chancellor I don't know much about. Regardless, competence has nothing to do with liking or disliking. Don't care about bullying into power- just shows he wants control and to lead the country- who doesn't? Election- that's a non-issue, of course they held on. Misleads the public, bah he does what any politician would...
I just like him as a person and I think he has principles. JUst like I like richard nixon even though he made some mistakes.
Brown bombed, his tactics in this series of debates has just been abyssmal.
Cameron ignored the questions as per usual and spat out shit he thinks the morons who are willing to vote for him would've liked to hear.
Clegg I believe (though I'm obviously very partial) came out tops by far, although on the economy he was pretty damn shit as the dynamics of the 1st half was just ping pong cameron brown he seemed to do very well during the questions and toward the end argued his point brilliantly.
Will be interesting to see the media's response to this one I've gotta say.
Personally I was fairly bored this time around ><! Didn't pay much attention. Brown throwing action on the inheritance tax lol...Clegg hammering Cameron on immigration, and then Brown and Cameron hammering twice as hard back hah. Gota say every time I think ok I'm voting conservative, I see Cameron and just roll my eyes...really am not impressed by his talking lol.
I think they were all pretty shit, I'm gonna vote lib dem but i was no impressed by the cutesy style of Clegg. Brown seemed to me to know the most what he was talking about, I just wish one of them would actually have the balls to say something intersting rather than this fucking boring appeal to everyone soulless politics. Cameron and Clegg were very similar in shitness.
Awww, come on, this was the first decent debate, they actually got stuck into one another. Yes or no is a much better phrase than i agree with Nick.
I have no idea why labour and the libs kept bringing up inheritance tax though, they must know it's massivly unpopular. Personally i agree with them on it but it seems a bit of a strange strat.
Lol it's funny, despite the general positivity on question time about the debate I agree with you guys; it was pretty abysmal. Now the novelty and fear has worn off they've settled down into their standard game playing tactics.
I knew inheritance tax was gonna get smashed again, why the Conservative don't just drop it I don't know. However, Clegg and Brown were telling bare faced lies and were able to get away with it! Clegg said "inheritance tax cuts for double millionaires"and "it doesn't help the 3,000 best off" said Brown.; that's simply not true. They want to raise the cap from 300,000 to 999,000. So double millionaires would still pay it and the "best off" would still pay too, only the people in the middle save. Also Clegg straight up lied about his immigration amnesty. When Cameron asked him he tried to deny it, then sort of back-peddled.
It seemed like Cameron had a vendetta against Clegg. Cameron's plan is to somehow knock Clegg off his stride and ignore Brown at the same time. But then Brown had a vendetta against Cameron. I think his plan now is to drag the Conservatives down so he possible stay as PM in a hung parliament. Clegg tried to distance himself from the other, but because he was under so much flack from Cameron it didn't really work. It was just game playing and they all looked pretty silly.
Oh and the Liberal immigration amnesty just got owned by Dimbleby on question time. Vince read the list of requirements one of which is "must have been here for 10 years"; the point raised was if they snuck in illegally how do you know how long they've been here for! My further point would be, why do we assume immigrats are stupid? The only immigrants who will accept the amnesty will be the ones that gain from it. I.e. the ones that will immediately start claiming benefits.
Bah I'm pretty annoyed now actually. For me voting is about choosing the best option, even if the choice is poor. They are all pretty awful but I think a Conservative majority would probably be the least bad; so I guess I have to vote for them.
Oh and the Liberal immigration amnesty just got owned by Dimbleby on question time. Vince read the list of requirements one of which is "must have been here for 10 years"; the point raised was if they snuck in illegally how do you know how long they've been here for! My further point would be, why do we assume immigrats are stupid? The only immigrants who will accept the amnesty will be the ones that gain from it. I.e. the ones that will immediately start claiming benefits.
You honestly think that the only thing to be gained from British citizenship is benefits? The minimum wage, the safety that legal employment employment affords (remember morecambe bay?), not having to hide in fear of being deported or even just the pride that comes as being recognized as a citizen are all available with amnesty. I think you'd hard pushed to find a illegal immigrant who benefits from not being a citizen of this country and i'd imagine the vast majority of those eligible for amnesty will take it. I say more power to them, if you've lived and worked in this country and want to stay and contribute then as the Libs say, better for both you and the UK if you come out of the shadows.
Oh and the Liberal immigration amnesty just got owned by Dimbleby on question time. Vince read the list of requirements one of which is "must have been here for 10 years"; the point raised was if they snuck in illegally how do you know how long they've been here for! My further point would be, why do we assume immigrats are stupid? The only immigrants who will accept the amnesty will be the ones that gain from it. I.e. the ones that will immediately start claiming benefits.
You honestly think that the only thing to be gained from British citizenship is benefits? The minimum wage, the safety that legal employment employment affords (remember morecambe bay?), not having to hide in fear of being deported or even just the pride that comes as being recognized as a citizen are all available with amnesty. I think you'd hard pushed to find a illegal immigrant who benefits from not being a citizen of this country and i'd imagine the vast majority of those eligible for amnesty will take it. I say more power to them, if you've lived and worked in this country and want to stay and contribute then as the Libs say, better for both you and the UK if you come out of the shadows.
You've living in a fantasy land. What's Clegg's catch phrase? "Criminal Gangs", they're all in "Criminal Gangs" he bangs on. The people who wont accept amnesty are the exact minority Clegg keeps talking about.
And of course I know there is far more to be gained from being British than benefits; all those things you mentioned plus council housing and more. But very few of those things will be to the gain of the people who work honestly in this country. If you break the law, you don't deserve to gain from the hard work of other. This is such a naive policy.
How on earth do you think do you think illegal immigrants get into this country? They can't steal a boat and row across. It obviously takes an organized group to smuggle people illegally, hence the term criminal gangs. Likewise do you think illegal immigrants can survive with a limited knowledge of english and no citizenship without someone doing their dealings for them? No job and no home spells either death or deportion in pretty fast order. Illegal immigrants being controled by criminal gangs are certainly not in the minority and that's another key point: Clegg doesn't say their all in criminal gangs, he's says their being controlled by criminal gangs which is a pretty fundemental difference. I have no doubt the ringleaders wouldn't accept amnesty: the key is to get those under their heel out from under it.
I also don't understand how you think making illegal immigrants citizens would somehow be a cost to British people. Their here anyway, taking jobs at low wages and working in the worst conditions in Britain. If you bring them out and make them taxpayers then they pay for the services they now have access to. Clearly their more willing to work than most British people if they've travelled the world to work for less than anyone else would accept. You also get the bonus of being able to find out who has smuggled them into the country and who has employed them illegally, both of which are far greater crimes than wanting a decent life.
Final point is this: it's naive to think you can deport anything more than a fraction of illegal immigrants.
Agree with the ppl supporting the immigration amnesty. To be honest I don't care who's here as long as they pay taxes. Tighten the borders sure but whoever is in right now, best to get em out of the woodwork...hopefully there are more workers than old ppl (illegally smuggling yourself in must be quite hard) and therefore more fit ppl who work...therefore a net gain for our hospitals and public services.
Personally I don't think the blanket £10,000 taxable income minimum thing is a good example of common sense. You're looking at a budget deficit and you decide something that expensive? It will stretch their efficiency savings to the limit. In fact rather a lot of the liberal policies and ideas are quite weak under scrutiny...guess that's the luxury of a third horse in a two horse race. The whole 'we are the only party who wants to stop tax avoidance' line is ridiculous. As if very clever men haven't already been trying for a very long time...
On April 30 2010 09:00 sc4k wrote: Agree with the ppl supporting the immigration amnesty. To be honest I don't care who's here as long as they pay taxes. Tighten the borders sure but whoever is in right now, best to get em out of the woodwork...hopefully there are more workers than old ppl (illegally smuggling yourself in must be quite hard) and therefore more fit ppl who work...therefore a net gain for our hospitals and public services.
It won't be a net gain, it will be more drain on the system. 2.5 million unemployed already, we simply can't afford to prop more people up. It didn't work in Spain or America and they don't have anywhere near the level of benefits we have in this country.
On April 30 2010 09:18 Adeeler wrote: Hmm, Liberals still the only ones talking common sense, just hope they get enough seats to cause some 'fairness' to creep back into this government.
I don't see how people buy this. Both the Conservatives and the Liberals have some things that could be considered daft and a lot of sensible stuff; but really they are quite similar. How can only the Liberals be talking common sense when the agree on so many things with the Conservatives? DNA database, police on the beat, elected health boards and police, keep the post office, house insulation projects, keep tax credits, restore pension link, change/scrap retirement age, cut regulation in business, get the banks lending, re-regulate the banks, sort out the public finances, incentivise rail travel, protect frontline NHS, sack your MP, restore liberties, crack down on knife crime.
Let's talk about some of the things that the Liberals stand out on. Scrap tuition fees in 6 years time: They won't give other figures after the next parliament so why this one? Because it's easy vote grabbing. No to like-for-like Trident replacement: Even though Trident IS the best alternative. They pretend like they want to scrap it, but say they will just change it when there is no alternative. No to Nuclear power: I had placements in the power industry, it's Nuclear power or lights off; there is no alternative. Investing in untested renewables would be unwise, we need time for technologies to be refined.
As for fairness, as we discussed before the system isn't fair but it does work well. It's not a coincidence that PR and voting at 16 greatly benefits the Liberals and they are arguing for that.
Right now I think a hung parliament is probably something we don't want. I just can't imagine the parties working together, they refuse to recognise when they agree; quite the opposite they reinforce differences. If Clegg didn't play the "I'm so different" game I would probably vote for him, but the truth is he is trying to be just as misleading as the other two.
On April 30 2010 16:18 Klive5ive wrote: It won't be a net gain, it will be more drain on the system. 2.5 million unemployed already, we simply can't afford to prop more people up. It didn't work in Spain or America and they don't have anywhere near the level of benefits we have in this country.
I believe the reason it has been considered a failure in Spain is that it encouraged more illegal immigration. I'm not sure of the economic figures but I doubt that our system would be drained much...I mean illegal immigrants can probably use the NHS anyway...but this way they would be paying taxes. I think the argument is whether it would encourage illegal immigration.
On April 28 2010 23:26 MoltkeWarding wrote: The principle behind inheritance, whether of money or of rank, is not "fairness" but that an individual's labours may transcend his mortality, thereby giving a man's life continuity and meaning beyond the boundaries of birth and death. To rationalize the destruction of these most basic social bonds by a double subterfuge of assuming their impotence on one hand, and seeking to distribute those bonds indiscriminately to all humanity on the other, is to base castles on clouds.
This argument will never work for me. It is fluffy and abstract. No one needs or deserves more than an inheritance of something like £100k. Everything else should be taxed, not cripplingly but pretty hard. Especially over 1m. Any ridiculous arguments about transcending morality and breaking the boundaries between life and death just pale in comparison to providing healthcare and policing for all. Couldn't care less about the choices of the rich ppl who want to give lil Johnny boy £10m. Seriously, couldn't give one shit. Johnny boy's not in any trouble.
You realise right now people who own their own homes but don't have a load of cash can't pass them on because house prices are so high. When you inherit the house the gov values it and gives you a cash bill, despite the fact what you got was an illiquid asset. The result being that the family home you grew up in has to be mortgaged or sold. It's even worse in desirable country locations such as villages in the commuter belt where the established population couldn't afford to buy their own houses at the new prices. They're forced out of their own family homes by rising prices.
On April 30 2010 16:18 Klive5ive wrote: It won't be a net gain, it will be more drain on the system. 2.5 million unemployed already, we simply can't afford to prop more people up. It didn't work in Spain or America and they don't have anywhere near the level of benefits we have in this country.
I believe the reason it has been considered a failure in Spain is that it encouraged more illegal immigration. I'm not sure of the economic figures but I doubt that our system would be drained much...I mean illegal immigrants can probably use the NHS anyway...but this way they would be paying taxes. I think the argument is whether it would encourage illegal immigration.
Well you're absolutely right, that is the main argument. As to the figures, of course there are no figures. We simply don't know how many so it's all speculation. The Lib Dems says it's about 600,000 but I don't know where they got that from. I think there are 3 issues here: 1) Is it right that someone who has come here illegally be given citizenship? I think morally no. 2) Will it help the illegal immigration problem? Examples from other countries suggest no. 3) Will the country gain from the ones who are here being legal? Hmm, I'm not sure.
I still don't get why people hate inheritance tax so much, why shouldn't people be able to pass their estate and money down to their children without getting taxed on it? Surely you've earned the right to pass that money down to your kids when you die.
On April 30 2010 02:23 haduken wrote: What's stopping them just sign over titles to their kids before they die? or just give them 'gifts'?
Sure, stamp duty would be a killer but it would be another battle for the taxman.
Yeah of course, there's no silver bullet but moltkewarding is making a moral case not a practical case.
Concerning cheating the estate tax, in the UK the value of the taxed estate is retrospectively calculated, and any "gifts" given before death will not be exempt from taxation.
About sc4k's criticism: isn't it interesting that issues which concern humanity directly are now more "abstract" than the concrete exercises of predicting the real effects of deficit spending, musing on the meaning of British sovereignty, or a man's right to citizenship.
Mass democracy is the catalyst of mental abstraction; it's only when politics are decided on a local level that one can focus on concrete issues without number-dropping and model-building. Since none of that is very effective in a general election, the primordial appeal to the voters remains the abstract moral argument.
Postal voted, Conservative in the general, Lib Dems in the local. My problem with the Lib Dems is their inexperience because they've always been a fringe party but in local government they know their shit and I dislike them less than the main two. I couldn't vote for Labour in the general after the last 13 years. That said I don't live in a swing seat so my vote was utterly meaningless.
Heading off to vote for my first time tomorrow . (Narrowly missed the 2005 election).
Gona vote Green because I couldn't find a convincing conviction either way in the national race. And I think Caroline Lucas deserves a seat. My vote will be very relevant I believe .
PS: my opinion wasn't changed by any of the debates, but has been heavily influenced in this topic as well as by my dad
On May 06 2010 07:00 sc4k wrote: Heading off to vote for my first time tomorrow . (Narrowly missed the 2005 election).
Gona vote Green because I couldn't find a convincing conviction either way in the national race. And I think Caroline Lucas deserves a seat. My vote will be very relevant I believe .
PS: my opinion wasn't changed by any of the debates, but has been heavily influenced in this topic as well as by my dad
Dam I wish I was in such a juicy marginal as you. If Caroline gets a seat it will indeed be quite incredible.
I'm definitely going to stay up to watch it all live, there's a few real stories such as will Ed Balls get his seat back? Will Nick Griffin get Barking?
Yeah it's pretty sweet, everyone has their posters up and it's like rainbow of colours from house to house! I hope to god that at least if Dick Griffin gets a seat Lucas gets one two.
Not sure if I can be bothered staying up, apparently some councils are waiting till Friday morning to count the ballots as its cheaper than paying people overtime the night before so we won't know who wins till like midday Friday.
On May 06 2010 07:00 sc4k wrote: Heading off to vote for my first time tomorrow . (Narrowly missed the 2005 election).
Gona vote Green because I couldn't find a convincing conviction either way in the national race. And I think Caroline Lucas deserves a seat. My vote will be very relevant I believe .
PS: my opinion wasn't changed by any of the debates, but has been heavily influenced in this topic as well as by my dad
Dam I wish I was in such a juicy marginal as you. If Caroline gets a seat it will indeed be quite incredible.
I'm definitely going to stay up to watch it all live, there's a few real stories such as will Ed Balls get his seat back? Will Nick Griffin get Barking?
Definitely going to get the beers in and watch it. I'm so glad that I don't have any money on Betfair as I'd probably blow it all on political degeneracy (that said, I don't know why Labour don't put millions on themselves not winning, when they're that much in debt, taking a sure thing makes sense).
On May 06 2010 07:00 sc4k wrote: Heading off to vote for my first time tomorrow . (Narrowly missed the 2005 election).
Gona vote Green because I couldn't find a convincing conviction either way in the national race. And I think Caroline Lucas deserves a seat. My vote will be very relevant I believe .
PS: my opinion wasn't changed by any of the debates, but has been heavily influenced in this topic as well as by my dad
Dam I wish I was in such a juicy marginal as you. If Caroline gets a seat it will indeed be quite incredible.
I'm definitely going to stay up to watch it all live, there's a few real stories such as will Ed Balls get his seat back? Will Nick Griffin get Barking?
Definitely going to get the beers in and watch it. I'm so glad that I don't have any money on Betfair as I'd probably blow it all on political degeneracy (that said, I don't know why Labour don't put millions on themselves not winning, when they're that much in debt, taking a sure thing makes sense).
On May 06 2010 07:00 sc4k wrote: Heading off to vote for my first time tomorrow . (Narrowly missed the 2005 election).
Gona vote Green because I couldn't find a convincing conviction either way in the national race. And I think Caroline Lucas deserves a seat. My vote will be very relevant I believe .
PS: my opinion wasn't changed by any of the debates, but has been heavily influenced in this topic as well as by my dad
Dam I wish I was in such a juicy marginal as you. If Caroline gets a seat it will indeed be quite incredible.
I'm definitely going to stay up to watch it all live, there's a few real stories such as will Ed Balls get his seat back? Will Nick Griffin get Barking?
Definitely going to get the beers in and watch it. I'm so glad that I don't have any money on Betfair as I'd probably blow it all on political degeneracy (that said, I don't know why Labour don't put millions on themselves not winning, when they're that much in debt, taking a sure thing makes sense).
Lucas will win Brighton easily by the way
Yeah, that'd be a good way to make 10 grand.
you reckon?? I don't have any idea of recent polling results in Brighton but I wouldn't want to risk it, although I do like a little flutter every now and then. The greens went on a big campaign saying that they were the bookies' favourites but there are still so many vocal labour supporters here...I guess a few of them might be siphoned off the labour cause and the con cause will grow. I don't think I'll spend my last vestiges of money on a evens bet
Holy shit! So glad I don't live in an area like that...
Going along to the local mormon church to vote shortly lol, I know Alistair Darling is my local MP atm but I have no idea who the other candidates in this area are -_-
mormon church lol wtf. Saw that BNP confrontation vid on the bbc news website. Had mixed feelings. First, standard BNP being standardly retarded. Second, I thought would John Prescott have acted any differently if he were spat on? I wonder if there will be any criminal charges.
On May 06 2010 21:23 haduken wrote: Do Asians have a reputation of being criminals in Britain?
Or was this a ploy to gain votes from people who dislike immigrants?
Pakistanis kind of do, similar to black street gangs really, I think was part ploy to get more votes and part him just being himself and hating on minorities -_-
On May 06 2010 21:23 haduken wrote: Do Asians have a reputation of being criminals in Britain?
Or was this a ploy to gain votes from people who dislike immigrants?
Asians have a reputation of being rowdy in some places as do lots of other minorities...but it's nothing racially specific, it's to do with money and schooling.
And yeah what Americans call Asian we call oriental in this country.
On May 06 2010 21:13 jello_biafra wrote: He called them robbers and was threatening to call the cops on them.
Well wait a minute we don't know for sure if that's the whole story. We didn't see if anything happened before that.
I think that was just typical of the sort of fights that occasionally break out. Both groups were to blame and were clearly up for a fight. Stupid macho nonsense stirred up by racism.
If you think ethnic minorities especially "paki's" (i know this is a derogatory slur but it seems to apply to way more than just pakistani people as far as I can tell) don't have a reputation in England for criminal behaviour your living under a rock, whether right or wrong there certainly is a reputation
I'm from the white, extremely middle class, countryside. Closest I got to Pakistanis was a Bangladeshi friend who was third generation, also middle class, very liberal and gay.
On May 06 2010 21:13 jello_biafra wrote: He called them robbers and was threatening to call the cops on them.
Well wait a minute we don't know for sure if that's the whole story. We didn't see if anything happened before that.
I think that was just typical of the sort of fights that occasionally break out. Both groups were to blame and were clearly up for a fight. Stupid macho nonsense stirred up by racism.
I didn't say that anything happened, he simply asked them how many of them were robbers and asked them if they wanted the police to come.
In other news, Nigel Farage involved in non-fatal biplane crash while trying to fly a UKIP banner o'er Bercow's constituency. Lolling at that. He's like Dick Dastardly and Muttley was flying the plane.
I'LL GET YOU NEXT TIME BERCOOOOOW *crash*
Personally I hope he has a speedy recovery because I enjoy his appearances on telly .
I live in a similar area, where minorities are minorities in the same way that Luxemburg is not a large country, but whenever I go to major cities, especially northern ones, it seems there is a strong stereotype for asian youths (again meaning paki's here typically not people from the orient) to be associated with crime and antisocial behaviour.
Hmm well tbh I have always considered words to be innocent little creatures that are only corrupted by the people that use them. As I meant it only to convey the group without having to give a long politically correct description then I'm fine with it, although I probably shouldn't... so lets say "Asians" but i don't mean "Asians" at large.
I know I feel the same way but having seen ppl being called Paki and beaten up it personally feels very distasteful just like the word kike spic nigger or whatever.
It just seemed like no one would say 'I know of some groups of Nigerians and Somalians, and Jamacians- well let's call them niggers for ease' and therefore it's equally egregious to use paki.
Whilst Labour manages to take the moral highground on "standing up for the working class". The reality is they are just totally incompetent in government. Hence our ridiculous debt, highest of any developed country (I think it's something like 170% of GDP) and massive gap in public finances.
If you are referring to government debt the figure is nowhere near that high. Nor is it particularly high by historic standards:
The hysteria over the deficit is an unfortunate distraction from more important matters such as employment levels and productivity, in my view. But it fits with a certain dominant economic ideology, which is why it is central to the mainstream discussion as framed by the media and the political establishment.
UK debt is at 450% of GDP , i can't see how you can see that is sustainable.
On May 06 2010 21:55 sc4k wrote: Paki is a really derogatory term by the way. There is literally no difference between that word and nigger where I come from (LDN).
It wasn't 20 years ago. It used to be perfectly acceptable to say something like "I'm going to the Paki shop"(in reference to the commonness of Pakistani owned newsagents) These words have as much venom as you put into them. Saying Paki as short for Pakistani shouldn't offend anyone any more than Brit for British. There should be sufficient difference in the tone, inflection and context to distinguish a hate term from a statement of nationality.
Mate, I bet someone would have said exactly the same thing about the word nigger.
I know the word makes more sense than nigger, because it's simply a shortening, but it has been used in harsh context too often in the recent history of our country to be acceptable. I don't use the word nigger because it upsets black people and that upsets me. I similarly don't use the word paki because it upsets many people of South Asian descent. I'm just saying that personally I'd advise anyone not to use it. And not to stand up for themselves as if their way of life has been threatened when they are asked not to use it. Just give it up. For example I resigned to not using the word oriental on this forum when I found out people from America dislike it, even though it's perfectly acceptable here.
What about "having a chinky" meaning getting a Chinese takeaway? It's just slang.
Do Americans really dislike the word oriental? It doesn't even roll off the tongue. Hate terms have to be fun to say or they wouldn't catch on. I just tried saying oriental with venom and it's no nigger.
Moving back to the video posted, I spent the entire time expecting excitedly for the BNP guy to have the shit kicked into him. Of course such a response might be playing into their political agenda.
On May 06 2010 22:25 XeliN wrote: Moving back to the video posted, I spent the entire time expecting excitedly for the BNP guy to have the shit kicked into him. Of course such a response might be playing into their political agenda.
How does that attitude make you any better than them? Thugs are thugs regardless of race, no-one should be wishing violence on anybody.
The "unite against Facism" lot are just as bad as some of the BNP. No-one should be throwing eggs or starting riots this is supposed to be a free country where you can say what you want.
I have zero problems with the BNP saying what they want. I don't even think it would be a disaster for Nick to get into parliament (probably won't happen). Voicing frustrations through discussion rather than violence is the whole point of democracy. If people see a problem and want to run for office to change things then good for them.
On May 06 2010 22:25 XeliN wrote: Moving back to the video posted, I spent the entire time expecting excitedly for the BNP guy to have the shit kicked into him. Of course such a response might be playing into their political agenda.
How does that attitude make you any better than them? Thugs are thugs regardless of race, no-one should be wishing violence on anybody.
The "unite against Facism" lot are just as bad as some of the BNP. No-one should be throwing eggs or starting riots this is supposed to be a free country where you can say what you want.
I have zero problems with the BNP saying what they want. I don't even think it would be a disaster for Nick to get into parliament (probably won't happen). Voicing frustrations through discussion rather than violence is the whole point of democracy. If people see a problem and want to run for office to change things then good for them.
It'd be a shocking inditement against the people of this country if he got into Parliament.
On May 06 2010 22:25 XeliN wrote: Moving back to the video posted, I spent the entire time expecting excitedly for the BNP guy to have the shit kicked into him. Of course such a response might be playing into their political agenda.
How does that attitude make you any better than them? Thugs are thugs regardless of race, no-one should be wishing violence on anybody.
The "unite against Facism" lot are just as bad as some of the BNP. No-one should be throwing eggs or starting riots this is supposed to be a free country where you can say what you want.
I have zero problems with the BNP saying what they want. I don't even think it would be a disaster for Nick to get into parliament (probably won't happen). Voicing frustrations through discussion rather than violence is the whole point of democracy. If people see a problem and want to run for office to change things then good for them.
It'd be a shocking inditement against the people of this country if he got into Parliament.
Yeah let's brush it under the carpet and pretend like we have a perfect multi-cultural society where no-one is concerned or upset. Nick Griffin has chosen to stand for election rather than parading around looking for a fight. There is something admirable in that approach even if his opinions are incredibly misguided.
Just got back from voting, pretty uneventful, I was the only person in there at the time lol, just me and the 3 old women ticking names off the register or whatever in that big hall.
The mormon (I assume, they were american and seemed to work at the church) girls out front showing you where to go were pretty hot and very friendly so that was good
No you are right Klive the fact that I can watch online video's of fights and find some entertainment in that means I am no better that the BNP and the views they hold.
With Nick Griffin I personally am skeptical whether he actually holds some of the beliefs and positions his party espouse or whether he does so for his own self-promotion. Either way he is a contemptable individual who ought to be flogged.
Edit: I should rephrase I wasn't suggesting a "fight" more someone having "the shit kicked into him" which is quite different but the point still stands, even if my position is weakened
On May 06 2010 22:20 KwarK wrote: What about "having a chinky" meaning getting a Chinese takeaway? It's just slang.
Do Americans really dislike the word oriental? It doesn't even roll off the tongue. Hate terms have to be fun to say or they wouldn't catch on. I just tried saying oriental with venom and it's no nigger.
Well from where I come from polite folk tend to avoid all racial terms like that. I went to a school where there were fairly large groups of South Asians and East Asians and I know they all hated with a passion the mention of words like paki and chink so I guess that's where I get my distaste of the word.
It's less of a sort of 'ooh man you can't say that' to 'oh come on man does it matter that much to you?'. It just makes me personally uncomfortable for ppl to be using such words in conversation. I guess it's my problem.
On May 07 2010 00:03 jello_biafra wrote: Just got back from voting, pretty uneventful, I was the only person in there at the time lol, just me and the 3 old women ticking names off the register or whatever in that big hall.
The mormon (I assume, they were american and seemed to work at the church) girls out front showing you where to go were pretty hot and very friendly so that was good
In Fife by chance? Might go check this out... seems as good a reason as any
Saying "Voted just now" and leaving out the who is no fun ^^, actually as today is polling time.
Poll: Who did you vote for?
Liberal Democrats (Clegg is the white Obama!) (8)
42%
Labour (I <3 Gordons jowls!) (4)
21%
Other (I'm always being told I'm special!) (4)
21%
Conservatives (I'm rich and want to urinate on the poor!) (3)
16%
19 total votes
Your vote: Who did you vote for?
(Vote): Labour (I <3 Gordons jowls!) (Vote): Liberal Democrats (Clegg is the white Obama!) (Vote): Conservatives (I'm rich and want to urinate on the poor!) (Vote): Other (I'm always being told I'm special!)
On May 06 2010 22:25 XeliN wrote: Moving back to the video posted, I spent the entire time expecting excitedly for the BNP guy to have the shit kicked into him. Of course such a response might be playing into their political agenda.
How does that attitude make you any better than them? Thugs are thugs regardless of race, no-one should be wishing violence on anybody.
The "unite against Facism" lot are just as bad as some of the BNP. No-one should be throwing eggs or starting riots this is supposed to be a free country where you can say what you want.
I have zero problems with the BNP saying what they want. I don't even think it would be a disaster for Nick to get into parliament (probably won't happen). Voicing frustrations through discussion rather than violence is the whole point of democracy. If people see a problem and want to run for office to change things then good for them.
It'd be a shocking inditement against the people of this country if he got into Parliament.
by the way it's spelt indictment I always used to spell it inditement too, but inditement means something like 'written thing' as opposed to 'condemnation' which is why it doesn't appear on spellchecks
On May 06 2010 22:25 XeliN wrote: Moving back to the video posted, I spent the entire time expecting excitedly for the BNP guy to have the shit kicked into him. Of course such a response might be playing into their political agenda.
How does that attitude make you any better than them? Thugs are thugs regardless of race, no-one should be wishing violence on anybody.
The "unite against Facism" lot are just as bad as some of the BNP. No-one should be throwing eggs or starting riots this is supposed to be a free country where you can say what you want.
I have zero problems with the BNP saying what they want. I don't even think it would be a disaster for Nick to get into parliament (probably won't happen). Voicing frustrations through discussion rather than violence is the whole point of democracy. If people see a problem and want to run for office to change things then good for them.
It'd be a shocking inditement against the people of this country if he got into Parliament.
by the way it's spelt indictment I always used to spell it inditement too, but inditement means something like 'written thing' as opposed to 'condemnation' which is why it doesn't appear on spellchecks
Also this is a free country and people should be able to say what they like, so long as i equally can tell them to shut the fuck up. UAF is never as fun it sounds anyway. You just leaflet allot.
Meh my vote won't make a difference since Steve Webb (liberal) is going to walk my constituency. But I voted Conservative for the hell of it to boost their vote% and their mandate in a possible hung parliament. Also because Cameron has been the most honest in this campaign.
On May 07 2010 02:55 kakaman wrote: Wait so Gordon Brown seems in place to win? What happened to the white Obama's momentum? What happened to change???
On May 07 2010 02:55 kakaman wrote: Wait so Gordon Brown seems in place to win? What happened to the white Obama's momentum? What happened to change???
Ha, I'm sure Obama would not appreciate being insulted in such a way.
Obama is a man of such character he tells the truth and fights for what's right even when it makes him unpopular. Clegg will just tell you exactly what you want to hear then deny it when examined later.
On May 07 2010 02:55 kakaman wrote: Wait so Gordon Brown seems in place to win? What happened to the white Obama's momentum? What happened to change???
Gordon Brown is an amazingly bad politician and that's just it.
On May 07 2010 00:48 XeliN wrote: Saying "Voted just now" and leaving out the who is no fun ^^, actually as today is polling time.
Poll: Who did you vote for?
Liberal Democrats (Clegg is the white Obama!) (8)
42%
Labour (I <3 Gordons jowls!) (4)
21%
Other (I'm always being told I'm special!) (4)
21%
Conservatives (I'm rich and want to urinate on the poor!) (3)
16%
19 total votes
Your vote: Who did you vote for?
(Vote): Labour (I <3 Gordons jowls!) (Vote): Liberal Democrats (Clegg is the white Obama!) (Vote): Conservatives (I'm rich and want to urinate on the poor!) (Vote): Other (I'm always being told I'm special!)
By white Obama do you mean he's going to make a lot of promises, win a Nobel Peace prize, and then do almost nothing except proving he's really in with the big corporations like healthcare and the banks and not with the people? Hopefully Clegg is better than that for the UK's sake.
Didn't vote. Orkney has the highest concentration of Lib Dem support in the country and Labour never loses in the part of Scotland I'm in now. I just don't care.
Quite big swings in the con direction however...seeing as this is one of those retarded constituencies full of hereditary voters and zero competition for labour.
On May 07 2010 02:55 kakaman wrote: Wait so Gordon Brown seems in place to win? What happened to the white Obama's momentum? What happened to change???
Ha, I'm sure Obama would not appreciate being insulted in such a way.
Obama is a man of such character he tells the truth and fights for what's right even when it makes him unpopular. Clegg will just tell you exactly what you want to hear then deny it when examined later.
Thinking American politics is any less bullshit than UK politics is a foolish thought indeed.
I'm not actually a UK citizen, so I have a kind of outsider's inside view, and one of the funniest things about elections in the UK is, that every time everyone talks about LibDem and then nobody actually votes for them. Seems like it has happened again. By nobody I don't mean that they didn't get a decent number of seats, but the pre-election hype about LibDems and people proclaiming their intentions ("vote to make a difference" - "change" - etc) and the final result are always vastly different. This has happened every time I remember and that goes back some 10 years by now ...
At least now things seem to move away from a 2-party system, which I think is good. Sadly this seems to be the case due to increasing support for lunatics like the BNP ...
On May 07 2010 02:55 kakaman wrote: Wait so Gordon Brown seems in place to win? What happened to the white Obama's momentum? What happened to change???
Ha, I'm sure Obama would not appreciate being insulted in such a way.
Obama is a man of such character he tells the truth and fights for what's right even when it makes him unpopular. Clegg will just tell you exactly what you want to hear then deny it when examined later.
Thinking American politics is any less bullshit than UK politics is a foolish thought indeed.
Lucky I didn't say that then.
This result or lack of result is pretty intriguing. Especially the vast difference in voting in Scotland and Wales. Nick Robinson writes that the only potential stable majority is a Conservative and Liberal combination. I really hope that they can put aside political point scoring and create a Government that works.
It must be pretty infuriating for the Lib Dems, Labour get 29.1% of the vote and get 255 seats so far and the lib dems get just 6.2% less (22.9%) of the vote but get only 54 seats.
Yes indeed, it's been worse I believe but it's pretty harsh for them. Ours is a two party system. I wonder what would happen in a referendum vote on voting reform.
It is pretty amazing the lib dems didn't shift one bit. I've always had a feeling that personal conviction and hereditary voting and sheer ignorance rules about 80% of the country's voting anyway...tend to find it a bit ridiculous how the press exaggerates every tiny thing and go around saying 'oh its definitely a win for so and so now' when most people just vote vs con because of thatcher or vs lab cos they went to war etc.
Pleased that we won green :D:D:D with 14k > 13k > 12k being the voting spread. Well done miss Lucas.
Cameron wants a alliance with the liberals. Even if Clegg and Cameron agree, there's no way the more right wing tories and more left wing liberals are going to let it last.
On May 08 2010 00:19 noddyz wrote: Interesting night, now a interesting day.
Cameron wants a alliance with the liberals. Even if Clegg and Cameron agree, there's no way the more right wing tories and more left wing liberals are going to let it last.
This is what I'd like to see for my progenitor nation. I think it can work.
This is a sad day for british polictics now we get 2 weeks of the lib debs holding the country to ransom for the best deal really do they have no souls at all .
As with all things, i blame the 3rd anti-christ Thatcher, wheres the IRA when you need them they could get all the torys in 1 go now.
Incase you dont understand im joking in very english way.
this is a really education thread. the debate was incredible, and the results of the poll shift is even more so. haha, I didn't even know about the liberals until this thread. good stuff!
On May 08 2010 03:08 kakaman wrote: So I'm guessing the British equivalent to George W Bush will lead the country in the next few years?
edit: don't take this too seriously:
No not quite. There is a possible analogy between our politics but you've got it slightly skewed.
Obama = Tony Blair (Old Labour leader) Biden = Brown (Our current/failed Labour PM) Democrats = Labour Republicans = Tories
13 years ago when we elected the Labour party and Tony Blair... that was like when you elected Obama. Blair swooped to power on a wave of popular support after driving out a quite unpopular right wing Government (but unlike Bush the Tories left the economy in a strong position).
Imagine 12 years from now Obama has screwed up the economy and failed miserably in the eyes of the people. He leaves and is replaced by Joe Biden who stays in power having not been elected.
Now this time the Republicans have a more sensible ticket with a younger, more progressive leader who tries to copy Obama. He's a bit of a rich twat though and you still have doubts about the Republicans after the Bush era.
Basically we've given the biggest mandate to the rich twat but he doesn't have a majority to Govern alone so the guy has to agree with a Liberal party to form a Government. Oh and Biden has to resign.
On May 08 2010 03:08 kakaman wrote: So I'm guessing the British equivalent to George W Bush will lead the country in the next few years?
Well it depends what you are comparing by, if it's political alignment and popularity from the left then yes, but in terms of public speaking, intelligence and ignorance, no. In the UK we have a different system were the working class vote left wing, and then middle class right wing as appose to America where you have the deep south working class voting republican, while the north middle class votes democrat/left. Also I'd say that the whole communism so i wont vote democrat style of thinking comes more from the left here in the UK, we have a "right is only for rich snobs and racists" dogma here despite our right wing party being more left wing than your democrats on most issues. I mean the fact that Tony Blair, the leader of our left wing aligned himself with George Bush shows how it's the other way round here in the UK. While Obama is not so keen, despite being considered the left in his country like our current government unlike Bush, and i don't see David Cameron, who will most likely be our new right wing leader, jumping to bend over backwards to the USA like Blair.
A quick update for anyone who cares. Elections in Britain are for MPs, regional representatives who sit in the lower house of our legislative. Government's in Britain are semi unofficial. What happens is the queen will invite the leader of the biggest party of MPs to become Prime Minister and form a government. He'll continue to be Prime Minister until such a time as he cannot govern effectively. To govern effectively you need the support of enough MPs to put legislation through. When it is clear a Prime Minsister can no longer govern effectively he will officially ask the Queen to invite the leader of the opposition party to form a Government. For this reason despite losing the election Gordon Brown is still Prime Minister for now and Labour are still the Government. He no longer has the loyalty of sufficient MPs to pass any legislation but nobody else does either.
The Conservative Party got 306 with one delayed seat they will get which will bring them to 307. The total number of seats is 650 which means they are short of an absolute majority needed to govern effectively. If they had 326 MPs then they could unseat Brown immediately with a vote of no confidence where the House of Commons votes on whether the Government still has their confidence (it's what it sounds like). A simple majority forces the resignation of the PM (again not through any constitution but a tradition evolved out of the fact that a Government requires the support of the House of Commons to push through legislation).
Labour and Lib Dems came second and third respectively with 258 and 57 MPs, not enough to have a majority if they formed a coalition. With just 315 MPs they would have to utilise the party whip (every MP in the party is told to vote the same way or face deselection) and rely on minor parties to pass every single piece of legislation. That's not viable so they know they cannot form a Government.
There are a few regional parties which defy the national three party trend. The DUP in Northern Ireland are allied with the Conservatives but if every other independent and regional MP in the country all threw their lot in with Labour and the Lib Dems that'd bring them to 330.
The most likely outcome is that the Conservatives form a minority Government with firm support from the DUP (bringing them to 315) and loose support from the Lib Dems, in exchange for concessions. The one concession that the Lib Dems want more than anything else is electoral reform to proportional representation so they don't get fucked over every election but I don't see the Conservatives giving them that because they benefit too much from it. But given how close to a majority Cameron was I'm sure they can find some common ground. Even if Conservatives don't get support from either party Labour is divided enough to be able to poach a few stray votes from their backbench MPs if needed although that would create the possibility of the Labour whip defeating the Conservatives on a big vote which acts as a vote of no confidence.
You know your country is in deep shit when all the politicians try to do is convince you they are the least terrible out of the whole lot, come on, let's get real here, my opponent wants to blah blah blah
I can't vote but if I did, I'd vote for the BNP. I mean, nobody sane actually hopes they win anything, but I'd do it to get the message out that immigration (which is kind of like their only card) is a subject I feel strongly on, and if you can form a coherent, non-idiotic stand on it without being afraid of losing support, this vote is yours.
Question, do people never vote for UKIP for parliament because they are crazies, but they vote for them during European elections to get the UK out of the EU without giving them real power?
On May 10 2010 12:28 Romantic wrote: Question, do people never vote for UKIP for parliament because they are crazies, but they vote for them during European elections to get the UK out of the EU without giving them real power?
I dunt get it
EU elections are done on the regional list system with loosely proportional representation within regions. Westminster elections are done on constituency first past the post where a simple plurality wins. It's very unlikely UKIP will ever get a plurality of the vote. Also people tend to vote for minor parties more in less important elections to express single issue opinions and return to core parties at the general election.
Rank country Debt - external Date of Information 1 United States $ 13,450,000,000,000
30 June 2009 2 United Kingdom $ 9,088,000,000,000
30 June 2009 3 Germany $ 5,208,000,000,000
30 June 2009
http://xkcd.com/558/ Not exactly relevant, but I'd like to remind people how giving the actual figures don't mean anything, since it tells us nothing about how difficult it will be to repay. One billion owed by, say, Nigeria versus one billion owed by the United States is a completely different matter. So try to get a proper context of what it really means to own this much money.
Well there we have it, a new prime minster, David Cameron, hopefully the liberals and con's can work together so we don't have a messy election in 6 months time.
We'll have another election soon enough. He won't manage to govern effectively in minority and the first time he's challenged he'll make it a vote of no confidence. If he loses it he'll take it to the country.
On May 12 2010 05:12 KwarK wrote: We'll have another election soon enough. He won't manage to govern effectively in minority and the first time he's challenged he'll make it a vote of no confidence. If he loses it he'll take it to the country.
Who said he would govern in minority? It's far more likely now we will get a Lib-Con coalition. Let's wait and see but I'm optimistic we will finally get a decent Government.
On May 12 2010 05:45 Lyter wrote: Sadtimes i miss gordie already
Seconded.
David Milliband will save us in 4-5 years time, I believe!
I never thought I would miss him, but I have to admit... That's funny, lots of my friends voted lib dem and are sooo shocked to see that their vote went to a coalition with Cameron as PM. They feel they have been fucked and I think they are right.
By the way, the same happened in France when Sarkozy got elected. I immediately realized that after all Chirac was not that bad at the end, I almost liked him from time to time. Maybe not. Compared to what we get evryday with the dwarf, Chirac looks like the good old time. And it was really really not that good in absolute.
On May 12 2010 05:45 Lyter wrote: Sadtimes i miss gordie already
Seconded.
David Milliband will save us in 4-5 years time, I believe!
I never thought I would miss him, but I have to admit... That's funny, lots of my friends voted lib dem and are sooo shocked to see that their vote went to a coalition with Cameron as PM. They feel they have been fucked and I think they are right.
We'll your friends were foolish.
You can only change politics from the inside. So what Cameron is a Tory? He knew that the only way to actually make a difference in this tribal two party system is to join a party and change it from the inside. That is in many ways what he's trying to do.
What we have now in the Cameron-Clegg coalition is a progressive party who will ensure that the overly extravagant Tory policies are squashed; combined with an honest, sensible leading party who have the guts to make necessary cuts and care more about the country than their popularity .
This is the best we could have hoped for and it's such a shame that the majority of my generation is so incomprehensibly ignorant to the reality of the political situation.
On May 12 2010 05:45 Lyter wrote: Sadtimes i miss gordie already
Seconded.
David Milliband will save us in 4-5 years time, I believe!
I never thought I would miss him, but I have to admit... That's funny, lots of my friends voted lib dem and are sooo shocked to see that their vote went to a coalition with Cameron as PM. They feel they have been fucked and I think they are right.
We'll your friends were idiots and they are still idiots.
You can only change politics from the inside. So what Cameron is a Tory? He knew that the only way to actually make a difference in this tribal two party system is to join a party and change it from the inside. That is exactly what he's trying to do.
What we have now in the Cameron-Clegg coalition is a progressive party who will ensure that the overly extravagant Tory policies are squashed; combined with an honest, sensible leading party who have the guts to make necessary cuts and care more about the country than their popularity .
This is the best we could have hoped for and it's such a shame that the majority of my generation is so incomprehensibly ignorant to the reality of the political situation.
My friends are not idiots, and I think you are very naive, so naive that's it's touching. Enjoy it while it lasts.
If either of the Milibands (most likely David) or Alan Johnson becomes leader of the Labour party, I'll very likely be voting labour in 5 years time (maybe less as you guys have said). I greatly respect all of them, much much more than David Cameron.
PS I somewhat agree with Klive in theory but in practice there are probably too many hardcore lefties and righties in this coalition for it to be very functional. At the best, they will pass through the skeleton of what is needed, at the worse they will come unstuck at the first European issue or something like that and that will be the end of that chapter.
On May 12 2010 05:45 Lyter wrote: Sadtimes i miss gordie already
Seconded.
David Milliband will save us in 4-5 years time, I believe!
I never thought I would miss him, but I have to admit... That's funny, lots of my friends voted lib dem and are sooo shocked to see that their vote went to a coalition with Cameron as PM. They feel they have been fucked and I think they are right.
We'll your friends were idiots and they are still idiots.
You can only change politics from the inside. So what Cameron is a Tory? He knew that the only way to actually make a difference in this tribal two party system is to join a party and change it from the inside. That is exactly what he's trying to do.
What we have now in the Cameron-Clegg coalition is a progressive party who will ensure that the overly extravagant Tory policies are squashed; combined with an honest, sensible leading party who have the guts to make necessary cuts and care more about the country than their popularity .
This is the best we could have hoped for and it's such a shame that the majority of my generation is so incomprehensibly ignorant to the reality of the political situation.
My friends are not idiots, and I thinnk you are very naive, so naive that's it's touching. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Ha, you actually thought a vote for the Lib Dems meant anything other than a hung parliament with Tory leadership and I'M naive.
If Cameron was leader of the Lib Dems you'd be in love with him instead. Despite him and Clegg being similar you despise one and love the other? Now that truly is naive.
On May 12 2010 07:00 XeliN wrote: Klive whats it like up their on that insurmountable pedestal? Is it sunny and full of the sound of clapping?
No as I said before it's very frustrating. I'm reasonably happy with the best possible outcome, even though I'm not stupid enough to believe it will have a fantastic outcome.
Interesting factoid, last time #britishpm was this young he lead Britain into War with US. Cameron dont' get any ideas. half a minute ago via TweetDeck
This is why i think we need to give Wales and Scotland independence, and why i can't understand why Tories don't back it lol it would give them a majority every election:
UK just doesn't have enough coalition government experience. For example, Finland usually has 4 parties governing everytime (had 5 like 8 years row) to maintain majority in parliament. Now days parties are willing to give compromises to other parties a lot to get majority. Cabinet is easy to arrange because spots are nowdays "fixed" which are ranked to highest ranked to lowest (Prime minister being first spot which goes to highest MP party, then secretary of treasure goes second party and so on).
So little bit experience and this might help UK more (at least over 60% peoples votes are now governing country instead of below 50%)
On May 12 2010 05:45 Lyter wrote: Sadtimes i miss gordie already
Seconded.
David Milliband will save us in 4-5 years time, I believe!
I never thought I would miss him, but I have to admit... That's funny, lots of my friends voted lib dem and are sooo shocked to see that their vote went to a coalition with Cameron as PM. They feel they have been fucked and I think they are right.
We'll your friends were idiots and they are still idiots.
You can only change politics from the inside. So what Cameron is a Tory? He knew that the only way to actually make a difference in this tribal two party system is to join a party and change it from the inside. That is exactly what he's trying to do.
What we have now in the Cameron-Clegg coalition is a progressive party who will ensure that the overly extravagant Tory policies are squashed; combined with an honest, sensible leading party who have the guts to make necessary cuts and care more about the country than their popularity .
This is the best we could have hoped for and it's such a shame that the majority of my generation is so incomprehensibly ignorant to the reality of the political situation.
My friends are not idiots, and I thinnk you are very naive, so naive that's it's touching. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Ha, you actually thought a vote for the Lib Dems meant anything other than a hung parliament with Tory leadership and I'M naive.
If Cameron was leader of the Lib Dems you'd be in love with him instead. Despite him and Clegg being similar you despise one and love the other? Now that truly is naive.
I don't vote in this country, and if I had to vote I would certainly not vote for the Lib Dems. You are naive because you believe that people are "good to do the job" or "not good to do the job". You don't see ideology.
Being a Tory means something. It means you agree with certain values, with certain priorities, and you come from a certain political tradition.
Theses friends voted for the Lib Dem because they thought they were an alternative to the New Labour at the *kof kof kof* "left". For them, having Cameron as a result is a betrayal. That's it.
On May 12 2010 07:10 Squeegy wrote: Ah, this is wonderful news!
No it's not. Come live in England and you will understand how deeply Tatcher and Major have fucked in the arse people of that country. I have been to Finland. Believe me, you better keep your system, because life is sixteen time better in Helsinki than in London.
Wow Nick Clegg deputy leader! I didn't see that coming. Is that normal in coalitions?
On May 12 2010 07:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: No it's not. Come live in England and you will understand how deeply Tatcher and Major have fucked in the arse people of that country. I have been to Finland. Believe me, you better keep your system, because life is sixteen time better in Helsinki than in London.
I don't think you know what you're talking about if you say Thatcher fucked over the people of this country. She fucked over the north, get it right, but even that is probably too strong language. She fucked over the secondary industry in our country. Major did nothing.
From the initial reports of the coalition it looks like the Tories may have made a lot of very generous concessions, looks like
On May 12 2010 07:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: No it's not. Come live in England and you will understand how deeply Tatcher and Major have fucked in the arse people of that country. I have been to Finland. Believe me, you better keep your system, because life is sixteen time better in Helsinki than in London.
It always comes back to this nonsense. Ask my Grandparents generation about Thatcher and they will say nothing but great things.
Personally I think she was a pretty pathetic character and was given far too long in power but that has nothing to do with right versus left or about a modern Tory Government.
As for Ideology. Even within the parties members will tell you very different things about their ideology. It's a very vague issue. People who study the issue will tell you that the Tories and Labour are reasonably close on the political compass. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010 My views put me much closer ideologically to Labour than the Tories. But ultimately if you follow politics you see that recently Labour has been very dishonest, misleading and incompetent. I don't need to reiterate the economic problems we are facing.
I might well vote Labour in 5 years but right now let's at least try to be sensible about what we have got. It's certainly not a dreadful outcome.
On May 12 2010 06:16 Biff The Understudy wrote: No it's not. Come live in England and you will understand how deeply Tatcher and Major have fucked in the arse people of that country. I have been to Finland. Believe me, you better keep your system, because life is sixteen time better in Helsinki than in London.
I am probably moving to London (or UK at the very least) by the end of the year, so I shall see!
On May 12 2010 07:28 Klive5ive wrote: Personally I think she was a pretty pathetic character and was given far too long in power but that has nothing to do with right versus left or about a modern Tory Government.
You are probably right about the power thing, but she wasn't called the Iron Lady for nothing! I think she was the opposite of pathetic. A very good talker with a strong, solid blue personal conviction; is how she struck me.
On May 12 2010 07:16 sc4k wrote: Wow Nick Clegg deputy leader! I didn't see that coming. Is that normal in coalitions?
There is no normal, this is the first hung parliament for a while! Also the Tories have given them 4 additional cabinet positions, which is generous considering how little seats that had, but if it means the coalition has a better chance of working i guess it's a good thing. I'm surprised though at some of the calls, apparently Tories still have the marriage tax break, although dropped the inheritance tax, i think those are probably some of the worse policies of the Tories and im surprised the lib dems didnt get them to drop the marriage tax break.
Also i have to say anyone who voted lib dem without realizing it was a real possibility that there would be a lib-con pact is naive, i mean come on the polls suggested a hung parliament with Tories with the most seats, what did you expect to happen? Tell your friends that this is the best result for them surely? this election had 4 realistic outcomes lib-lab pact, lib-con pact, con minority government, con majority. From the results there was 3 outcomes, a lib-lab rainbow pact that would be bound to fail and massive bad PR on both parties and most likely fuel a con landslide or at least a majority in the election 6 months time after it collapses, a con minority, not something your friends wanted, OR the first time in THIRTY years that the lib dems have power in government by forming a con-lib pact. Basically your friends are disappointed at the fact that the lib dems have taken the opportunity to have a real effect on the British government for a long time rather than opposing for oppositions sake.I mean i don't understand what your friends would rather? refuse to make a coalition and go on for another thirty years failing to have any effect on the government? I mean if the point of a party is to get into power, and when they are presented with some power turn it down, whats the point in them even existing?
On May 12 2010 07:28 Klive5ive wrote: Personally I think she was a pretty pathetic character and was given far too long in power but that has nothing to do with right versus left or about a modern Tory Government.
You are probably right about the power thing, but she wasn't called the Iron Lady for nothing! I think she was the opposite of pathetic. A very good talker with a strong, solid blue personal conviction; is how she struck me.
Well pathetic in the way I find Brown pathetic I guess. Unable to listen when everyone around them is giving them good advice, unable to see when perhaps they are going too far and unable to give in and accept when they make mistakes.
Rank country Debt - external Date of Information 1 United States $ 13,450,000,000,000
30 June 2009 2 United Kingdom $ 9,088,000,000,000
30 June 2009 3 Germany $ 5,208,000,000,000
30 June 2009
http://xkcd.com/558/ Not exactly relevant, but I'd like to remind people how giving the actual figures don't mean anything, since it tells us nothing about how difficult it will be to repay. One billion owed by, say, Nigeria versus one billion owed by the United States is a completely different matter. So try to get a proper context of what it really means to own this much money.
On May 12 2010 07:45 sc4k wrote: I guess that's fair, though quite a lot of leaders are like that.
Hmm very true. I guess the self belief that elevates you to that position of power is often ultimately a weakness.
Some policy news from the coalition is filtering through: The tory inheritance tax lift is scrapped as is the Liberal mansion tax. The Liberals £10,000 tax threshold increase will go ahead but only for low earners. They agree to cut spending this year and stop the NI rise next year. Non-EU immigration will be capped. Edit: Another just in, replacement for Trident to go ahead but scrutinised for money.
On May 12 2010 07:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: No it's not. Come live in England and you will understand how deeply Tatcher and Major have fucked in the arse people of that country. I have been to Finland. Believe me, you better keep your system, because life is sixteen time better in Helsinki than in London.
Best PM we ever had. We need Maggie back. She'd still have done a better job than Brown these last few years.
Liberal Democrats and Conservatives... doesn't seem like a coalition can work in pratice. When push comes to shove they will be polar opposites on all important issues(as the debates demonstrated).
I know the Conservatives and Liberals in the U.S. will never work together for many many reasons, is it as clear in UK politics. Or can the two parties actually manage to work together?
Both Cameron and Clegg are the sort of people who like to push past gay partisan party boundaries, but the rest of their parties certainly might not follow their modern political philosophy.
I'd say that our three parties are also basically Democrat-style parties. The conservatives are far less right-wing than the almost ridiculous GOP.
On May 12 2010 11:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I know the Conservatives and Liberals in the U.S. will never work together for many many reasons, is it as clear in UK politics. Or can the two parties actually manage to work together?
It can work because the leaders of both parties, Clegg and Cameron; are progressive, pragmatic characters. Cameron in particular has pulled the Conservatives more towards the middle ground and the result is the Liberals and Tories sharing many common views. The Liberal ministers voted unanimously for the coalition because they understand that they may never get an offer as generous as this again. For the first time since 1922 Liberals will be making a difference to policy decision.
Also they have agreed to the Liberal policy to fix the term of parliament to 5 years. In the past the Prime Minister always had the right to choose when to have an election. In this case Cameron can't "cut and run"; he has no choice but to make things work.
This could be the start of a fantastic thing in British politics, we'll have to see. The message Cameron and Clegg send out in that press conference seems to correlate to the general philosophies they present whenever I saw them speaking in the past five years. Hopefully they can actually push past the party boundaries and the older branches of their parties and deliver something both people can be proud of. I wonder how big of a department Clegg will actually get.
When you add Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and David Laws to any cabinet, it can only get better imo. Let's see how much freedom they get and if the Tory backbenchers can be kept in line.
The press conference was as inspiring to me as Obama- who also speaks about cutting down pointless partisan barriers. Now it's left to see if they can deliver on a grander scale than Obama, who from all accounts has talked a better game than he has played.
On May 13 2010 02:03 sc4k wrote: This could be the start of a fantastic thing in British politics, we'll have to see. The message Cameron and Clegg send out in that press conference seems to correlate to the general philosophies they present whenever I saw them speaking in the past five years. Hopefully they can actually push past the party boundaries and the older branches of their parties and deliver something both people can be proud of. I wonder how big of a department Clegg will actually get.
When you add Vince Cable, Chris Huhne and David Laws to any cabinet, it can only get better imo. Let's see how much freedom they get and if the Tory backbenchers can be kept in line.
The press conference was as inspiring to me as Obama- who also speaks about cutting down pointless partisan barriers. Now it's left to see if they can deliver on a grander scale than Obama, who from all accounts has talked a better game than he has played.
As Americans have learned with Obama and Bush, rhetoric is just rhetoric. Don't get your hopes up too soon. Wait and see what Cameron and Clegg do.
On May 12 2010 07:13 Biff The Understudy wrote: No it's not. Come live in England and you will understand how deeply Tatcher and Major have fucked in the arse people of that country. I have been to Finland. Believe me, you better keep your system, because life is sixteen time better in Helsinki than in London.
It always comes back to this nonsense. Ask my Grandparents generation about Thatcher and they will say nothing but great things.
Personally I think she was a pretty pathetic character and was given far too long in power but that has nothing to do with right versus left or about a modern Tory Government.
As for Ideology. Even within the parties members will tell you very different things about their ideology. It's a very vague issue. People who study the issue will tell you that the Tories and Labour are reasonably close on the political compass. http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010 My views put me much closer ideologically to Labour than the Tories. But ultimately if you follow politics you see that recently Labour has been very dishonest, misleading and incompetent. I don't need to reiterate the economic problems we are facing.
I might well vote Labour in 5 years but right now let's at least try to be sensible about what we have got. It's certainly not a dreadful outcome.
I don't agree with theses post-political ideas, à-la-Fukuyama, although in th case of UK, you may unfortunately be right.
You know what's for me the most stupid sentence which has been said theses last 30 years? It's the famous "It's the Economy, idiot". New Labour, or the death of politics. Economy how, for whom, by whom, that's not said in the sentence.
Last years have revealed that: 1- A country can have great economy "on the paper" and be in a horrible shape socially, with poors getting poorer and more numerous every year. 2- A country can have a very good economy which doesn't benefit anybody except a cast of traders and shareholders. 3- A country can be supposed to have a great economy and then crash and have to pay hundred of millions for the banks for which everything has been sacrified.
Where you are right is that England has a non existent political spectrum: everybody is between moderate right and right. There is no left wing anymore whatsoever, and it really seems that at the end politics is all about chosing the most efficient bureaucrat to run the country in the way orthodox liberal economists have theorised.
Political compass is obviously a funny shit, but a shit nontheless. Politics cannot be reduced or even visualised with two numbers.
I formly believe that ultraliberal policies and the bullcrap of the School of Chicago which have been the bible of UK's politic since Tatcher are entirely responsible of all the crap we are in today. I don't have the arrogance of saying that I know better than you the history of your country, but I have heard a lot of people saying here that Tatcher had been for UK what Attila has been for Roman Empire.
EPT![[image loading]](http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01042/Cam_Clegg_shake_28_1042267a.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/DailyPolling-190410.jpg)
. It was going to involve pokemon analogies TT
.![[image loading]](http://img686.imageshack.us/i/1983.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://www.synthstuff.com/mt/archives/orwell-watchfuleyes.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://stopthecap.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/murdoch.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/DailyPolling-290410.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4b672ecd000000000063a946/debt-sovereign.png)
![[image loading]](http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47827000/jpg/_47827299_queencameron466260_getty.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2632/86536172.png)
