|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 23 2013 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Maybe Cameron is doing this in an attempt to show the UKIP he is Conservative after all.
Eh, UKIP doesn't bother me nearly as much as the Tories. UKIP won't become the goverment, and Nigel is a really entertaining public speaker to listen to, even if I don't agree with him on much at all. The Conservative party is dull and annoying, and don't even start me ranting about Gove.
|
On July 23 2013 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Maybe Cameron is doing this in an attempt to show the UKIP he is Conservative after all.
UKIP voters only care about immigration/xenophobia. They're not interested in porn.
I don't understand why he's doing this at all, the only reason he won in the first place was because Labour had been in power too long and he presented himself as a break to the left from the old Tory tradition, both socially and economically.
He's not going to win the next election anyway (expect a Lib/Lab coalition imo) because he's pissed off way too many people but if he wants a sure fire way too lose it's to move further to the right.
|
On July 23 2013 12:22 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 12:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Maybe Cameron is doing this in an attempt to show the UKIP he is Conservative after all. UKIP voters only care about immigration/xenophobia. They're not interested in porn. I don't understand why he's doing this at all, the only reason he won in the first place was because Labour had been in power too long and he presented himself as a break to the left from the old Tory tradition, both socially and economically. He's not going to win the next election anyway (expect a Lib/Lab coalition imo) because he's pissed off way too many people but if he wants a sure fire way too lose it's to move further to the right.
Yeah, agreed. Esp on the Lib/Lab. It is funny how UKIP leaders like to pretend people support them for anything other than the EU and immigration.
|
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars.
|
On July 23 2013 07:54 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 11:43 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe the BBC has any political leanings although that could just be that it generally agrees with me. I'm reasonably centrist by British standards.
I'd say the BBC is somewhat (not massively) to the left of our country's 'mainstream' opinion. I heard the BBC leans left but wanted to see what the opinion was across the pond. The BBC is a state broadcaster. It get's a compulsory tax from anyone who owns a television, so is largely dependant on the state for income, in addition it's hirings and firings are subject to some state interference. But does them being part of the state automatically mean they are "leftist" in some sense as often accused? No, it means they, on most days, will play safe by the state. We should expect any organisation to avoid actions which might endanger the jobs of the people who influence the actions of that organisation. The BBC follows the state line because stepping off it might result in punishment. A good example is the Dr. David Kelly affair which ultimately resulted in the resignations of the BBC's Director General and the Chairman. To be fair though, some sectors of the British media will bad mouth the BBC fairly regularly no matter what they do. Why? Well they ruin the internets and mess with the great world money chi.
Yeah if they're funded/primarily funded by tax revenue than that answers my question. You don't bite the hand that feeds. This thread's already been very useful for me understanding aspects of UK politics, and the media aside has been doubly so. Big thank you from your formerly loyal colonists.
|
On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars.
I don't think 'being conservative' had anything to do with not getting a majority. The problem with politics now, on all sides, is that new blood are basically all fresh faced Oxbridge graduates who are career politicians, they have little to no experience outside of politics, whether that be in business, education, industry etc
All they know is politics and so that's the game they play, they may have feelings about issues but they lack strong conviction and any serious drive to change things and people are very good at discerning bullshit, I don't think many people believe Cameron is terrible, nor do they believe he's incredible. They do however believe he's a damn sight better than Milliband, because Milliband is a weak leader who inspires no confidence, and you can be a secret genius with all the right solutions but if you can't inspire confidence you will never lead.
Most people though are just fed up with it, no one trusts the main parties any more and protest votes like UKIP show that, most who voted for them wouldn't vote for them in the general election but they want to express their distrust for the main parties.
Labour is a mess right now, the unions forced Ed over his brother and now Labour are paying the price. Had it been David running against Cameron we'd probably have a different PM right now but that ship has sailed.
I don't think this Con government has been terrible, considering Milliband hasn't actually got any real policy I still trust them more than Labour, but neither inspire much confidence. I wish the Lib Dems actually had more political experience so they didn't fuck things up so much, Cable is a stupid politician at times but he'd do a shit tonne better than Osborne running the economy.
|
On July 23 2013 17:29 adwodon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars. I don't think 'being conservative' had anything to do with not getting a majority. The problem with politics now, on all sides, is that new blood are basically all fresh faced Oxbridge graduates who are career politicians, they have little to no experience outside of politics, whether that be in business, education, industry etc All they know is politics and so that's the game they play, they may have feelings about issues but they lack strong conviction and any serious drive to change things and people are very good at discerning bullshit, I don't think many people believe Cameron is terrible, nor do they believe he's incredible. They do however believe he's a damn sight better than Milliband, because Milliband is a weak leader who inspires no confidence, and you can be a secret genius with all the right solutions but if you can't inspire confidence you will never lead. Most people though are just fed up with it, no one trusts the main parties any more and protest votes like UKIP show that, most who voted for them wouldn't vote for them in the general election but they want to express their distrust for the main parties. Labour is a mess right now, the unions forced Ed over his brother and now Labour are paying the price. Had it been David running against Cameron we'd probably have a different PM right now but that ship has sailed. I don't think this Con government has been terrible, considering Milliband hasn't actually got any real policy I still trust them more than Labour, but neither inspire much confidence. I wish the Lib Dems actually had more political experience so they didn't fuck things up so much, Cable is a stupid politician at times but he'd do a shit tonne better than Osborne running the economy.
essentially this, Cameron is hated but at least makes it seem like he knows what he is doing, whereas Milliband just doesn't inspire enough confidence to justify voting for him, it would be hilarious if miliband didn't win his home constituency and we needed another labour leader,
but yes its pretty much tories>only helping the rich/out of touch with the people, Labour> Leader looks like a nervous idiot, and LibDems> Betrayed manifesto and slept with power.
sorry state of affairs to be honest
|
I think Ed Milliband lives somewhere near me, I've seen him around once or twice and he doesn't even inspire confidence wen he's not in front of a large group of people, he looked like someone who was scared of being outside by himself.
I have no faith in the Labour party, but I also fundementally disagree with the conservative party and I trust their members even less than the labour party ones. At least "old labour" guys who have managed to stand the test of time because they're so popular in their constituancies.
That should leave the Lib Dems, but how can I have faith in a party who sold themselves out for a chance at power. I think if they could have forseen how badly the Labour party would fail to bounce back after losing they would have held out for another 4 years and found themselves winning even more of the vote.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars.
On July 23 2013 18:56 SCkad wrote:
but yes its pretty much tories>only helping the rich/out of touch with the people, Labour> Leader looks like a nervous idiot, and LibDems> Betrayed manifesto and slept with power.
sorry state of affairs to be honest
Tedious, over-simplified viewpoints. The Conservative party won almost exactly the same number of actual votes (10.7m~) as Labour managed in their landslide victory of 2001. Lib Dems throwing a hissy fit and not redrawing boundaries pretty much sucks. When Labour win more than 100 seats more with the same popular vote, something's a bit weird.
Saying things like "tories only help the rich" is so dull when Labour kept the top tax rate at 40% for their entire term, only to move it to 50% literally just before they lost office just to make the Tories look bad when they reduced it to a rate still significantly above where Labour had it for their time in office :/
|
United States42689 Posts
On July 23 2013 15:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 07:54 Dapper_Cad wrote:On July 22 2013 11:43 Danglars wrote:On July 11 2013 09:35 KwarK wrote:
I don't believe the BBC has any political leanings although that could just be that it generally agrees with me. I'm reasonably centrist by British standards.
I'd say the BBC is somewhat (not massively) to the left of our country's 'mainstream' opinion. I heard the BBC leans left but wanted to see what the opinion was across the pond. The BBC is a state broadcaster. It get's a compulsory tax from anyone who owns a television, so is largely dependant on the state for income, in addition it's hirings and firings are subject to some state interference. But does them being part of the state automatically mean they are "leftist" in some sense as often accused? No, it means they, on most days, will play safe by the state. We should expect any organisation to avoid actions which might endanger the jobs of the people who influence the actions of that organisation. The BBC follows the state line because stepping off it might result in punishment. A good example is the Dr. David Kelly affair which ultimately resulted in the resignations of the BBC's Director General and the Chairman. To be fair though, some sectors of the British media will bad mouth the BBC fairly regularly no matter what they do. Why? Well they ruin the internets and mess with the great world money chi. Yeah if they're funded/primarily funded by tax revenue than that answers my question. You don't bite the hand that feeds. This thread's already been very useful for me understanding aspects of UK politics, and the media aside has been doubly so. Big thank you from your formerly loyal colonists.
No, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the BBC. The BBC is not funded out of general taxation for precisely the reason you think. It is funded by a special tax called the license fee and is accountable to an independent body who measure its decisions against its charter. It is not accountable to the government, nor funded by the government precisely because its creators wished it to be independent of the government.
|
If the next PMQ goes by with no-one asking the PM how often he has a wank to internet porn i will be extremely disappointed.
|
On July 23 2013 19:33 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars. Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 18:56 SCkad wrote:
but yes its pretty much tories>only helping the rich/out of touch with the people, Labour> Leader looks like a nervous idiot, and LibDems> Betrayed manifesto and slept with power.
sorry state of affairs to be honest Tedious, over-simplified viewpoints. The Conservative party won almost exactly the same number of actual votes (10.7m~) as Labour managed in their landslide victory of 2001. Lib Dems throwing a hissy fit and not redrawing boundaries pretty much sucks. When Labour win more than 100 seats more with the same popular vote, something's a bit weird. Saying things like "tories only help the rich" is so dull when Labour kept the top tax rate at 40% for their entire term, only to move it to 50% literally just before they lost office just to make the Tories look bad when they reduced it to a rate still significantly above where Labour had it for their time in office :/
So you would be in favour of proportional representation? :p
In truth, the whole system of MPs both representing constituencies and their parties, as well as some of them having government/cabinet positions, if just bad. For example, more than 99% of the country does not actually get to vote on who they want to be PM.
As for helping the rich, it is not just about tax rates. I have no problem with a government adjusting tax rates as appropriate, but things like 'Help to Buy' are absolutely disgusting.
|
Conservative election adviser Lynton Crosby today denied that he has had "any conversation or discussion" with Prime Minister David Cameron on the issue of plain packaging of cigarettes.
Crosby, whose lobbying firm is reported to have worked for tobacco giant Philip Morris, said that any suggestion that he had used his position as an adviser improperly was "simply false".
Labour leader Ed Miliband last night accused Cameron of "bringing big tobacco to the heart of Downing Street" by hiring the Australian polls guru as an adviser shortly before ditching plans for standardised cigarette packages.
But in a statement issued today by his company CTF Partners, Crosby said: "The Prime Minister has repeatedly and clearly said that I have never lobbied him on anything, including on the issue of tobacco or plain packaging of cigarettes.
"What the PM said should be enough for any ordinary person but to avoid any doubt or speculation let me be clear. At no time have I had any conversation or discussion with or lobbied the Prime Minister, or indeed the Health Secretary or the health minister, on plain packaging or tobacco issues.
"Indeed, any claim that I have sought to improperly use my position as part-time campaign adviser to the Conservative Party is simply false."
Source
|
On July 23 2013 22:23 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 19:33 marvellosity wrote:On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars. On July 23 2013 18:56 SCkad wrote:
but yes its pretty much tories>only helping the rich/out of touch with the people, Labour> Leader looks like a nervous idiot, and LibDems> Betrayed manifesto and slept with power.
sorry state of affairs to be honest Tedious, over-simplified viewpoints. The Conservative party won almost exactly the same number of actual votes (10.7m~) as Labour managed in their landslide victory of 2001. Lib Dems throwing a hissy fit and not redrawing boundaries pretty much sucks. When Labour win more than 100 seats more with the same popular vote, something's a bit weird. Saying things like "tories only help the rich" is so dull when Labour kept the top tax rate at 40% for their entire term, only to move it to 50% literally just before they lost office just to make the Tories look bad when they reduced it to a rate still significantly above where Labour had it for their time in office :/ So you would be in favour of proportional representation? :p In truth, the whole system of MPs both representing constituencies and their parties, as well as some of them having government/cabinet positions, if just bad. For example, more than 99% of the country does not actually get to vote on who they want to be PM. As for helping the rich, it is not just about tax rates. I have no problem with a government adjusting tax rates as appropriate, but things like 'Help to Buy' are absolutely disgusting.
We should definitely move towards PR asap. I'm really disappointed the Lib Dems couldn't even get that past in the coalition.
|
On July 24 2013 18:55 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:23 hzflank wrote:On July 23 2013 19:33 marvellosity wrote:On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars. On July 23 2013 18:56 SCkad wrote:
but yes its pretty much tories>only helping the rich/out of touch with the people, Labour> Leader looks like a nervous idiot, and LibDems> Betrayed manifesto and slept with power.
sorry state of affairs to be honest Tedious, over-simplified viewpoints. The Conservative party won almost exactly the same number of actual votes (10.7m~) as Labour managed in their landslide victory of 2001. Lib Dems throwing a hissy fit and not redrawing boundaries pretty much sucks. When Labour win more than 100 seats more with the same popular vote, something's a bit weird. Saying things like "tories only help the rich" is so dull when Labour kept the top tax rate at 40% for their entire term, only to move it to 50% literally just before they lost office just to make the Tories look bad when they reduced it to a rate still significantly above where Labour had it for their time in office :/ So you would be in favour of proportional representation? :p In truth, the whole system of MPs both representing constituencies and their parties, as well as some of them having government/cabinet positions, if just bad. For example, more than 99% of the country does not actually get to vote on who they want to be PM. As for helping the rich, it is not just about tax rates. I have no problem with a government adjusting tax rates as appropriate, but things like 'Help to Buy' are absolutely disgusting. We should definitely move towards PR asap. I'm really disappointed the Lib Dems couldn't even get that past in the coalition.
I don't think the conservatives would ever agree to proportional representation, they benefit from being one of the two biggest parties so they won't be seen as a wasted vote by some voters, they are also the only major right leaning party so their support isn't split like it is on the left.
I think it's really dumb that the government gets to change the voting system, it should be done by referendum, obviously the government is only going to change it if the system benefits themselves, which is why the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour all want a different system.
Here's a diagram of what the results of the 2010 elections would've been like under different voting systems. ![[image loading]](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/maps_and_graphs/2010/05/10/Alt.voting.960.gif)
I'll let you guess which system each party wants.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On July 23 2013 22:23 hzflank wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 19:33 marvellosity wrote:On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars. On July 23 2013 18:56 SCkad wrote:
but yes its pretty much tories>only helping the rich/out of touch with the people, Labour> Leader looks like a nervous idiot, and LibDems> Betrayed manifesto and slept with power.
sorry state of affairs to be honest Tedious, over-simplified viewpoints. The Conservative party won almost exactly the same number of actual votes (10.7m~) as Labour managed in their landslide victory of 2001. Lib Dems throwing a hissy fit and not redrawing boundaries pretty much sucks. When Labour win more than 100 seats more with the same popular vote, something's a bit weird. Saying things like "tories only help the rich" is so dull when Labour kept the top tax rate at 40% for their entire term, only to move it to 50% literally just before they lost office just to make the Tories look bad when they reduced it to a rate still significantly above where Labour had it for their time in office :/ So you would be in favour of proportional representation? :p In truth, the whole system of MPs both representing constituencies and their parties, as well as some of them having government/cabinet positions, if just bad. For example, more than 99% of the country does not actually get to vote on who they want to be PM. As for helping the rich, it is not just about tax rates. I have no problem with a government adjusting tax rates as appropriate, but things like 'Help to Buy' are absolutely disgusting.
I admit to not knowing that much about the scheme, but as I understand it, there's pretty strict limitations on who can apply/use this scheme. Is this not the case? Otherwise, what are you referring to? ^^
|
Those limitations apply to the second part of the scheme (non-first time buyers) and were only announced yesterday, after I made that post.
The primary beneficiaries of the scheme will be people who own a lot of property in south-east England. The scheme is designed to keep property values rising for the next few years. The reason that people need help to buy in the first place is because property values are too high. If the government leaves it alone I would expect values to stagnate or even fall for the next few years or so. That would help the poor as a whole rather than what they are doing with helps landlords and a very small number of poor people.
On budget day when George announced that scheme I almost fell out of my chair. It is wrong on so many levels. The government has gotten a bit of flack for it but they have pushed ahead with it anyway.
On an unrelated not, regarding taxes. IIRC when the tories lowered the top rate of tax they also reduced the boundry by around £2300. Therefore, even ignoring the fact that labour only raised the tax at the end of their time in government, the change by the tories benefited those earning >£50k but actually increased taxes on those in the £33k-£45k range (numbers may be slightly off, its from the top of my head).
I am not necessarily opposed to a tory government, but Cameron and Osbourne are just horrible people with very selfish interests. The Crosby tobacco thing is just another example that happened this week.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Source for the £2300 thing? Boundaries haven't moved in forever as far as I recall (which is a problem in itself).
|
|
|
On July 24 2013 18:55 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:Show nested quote +On July 23 2013 22:23 hzflank wrote:On July 23 2013 19:33 marvellosity wrote:On July 23 2013 12:28 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:
A lot of people forgot between 1997 and 2010 what a shower of cunts the Conservatives are (or they never lived through them as adults) but they've done a good job reminding people in the last 3 years so I expect them to be booted out of office pretty swiftly, especially as they couldn't even win a majority after 13 years of Labour, the worst economic recession since The Wall Street Crash and 2 largely pointless and unsuccessful wars. On July 23 2013 18:56 SCkad wrote:
but yes its pretty much tories>only helping the rich/out of touch with the people, Labour> Leader looks like a nervous idiot, and LibDems> Betrayed manifesto and slept with power.
sorry state of affairs to be honest Tedious, over-simplified viewpoints. The Conservative party won almost exactly the same number of actual votes (10.7m~) as Labour managed in their landslide victory of 2001. Lib Dems throwing a hissy fit and not redrawing boundaries pretty much sucks. When Labour win more than 100 seats more with the same popular vote, something's a bit weird. Saying things like "tories only help the rich" is so dull when Labour kept the top tax rate at 40% for their entire term, only to move it to 50% literally just before they lost office just to make the Tories look bad when they reduced it to a rate still significantly above where Labour had it for their time in office :/ So you would be in favour of proportional representation? :p In truth, the whole system of MPs both representing constituencies and their parties, as well as some of them having government/cabinet positions, if just bad. For example, more than 99% of the country does not actually get to vote on who they want to be PM. As for helping the rich, it is not just about tax rates. I have no problem with a government adjusting tax rates as appropriate, but things like 'Help to Buy' are absolutely disgusting. We should definitely move towards PR asap. I'm really disappointed the Lib Dems couldn't even get that past in the coalition.
The Lib Dems only want PR because it will give more power to their party. PR is not necessarily a better system. The AV referendum was interesting because from a theoretical point of view it should of been a very minor improvement over what we have currently, yet everyone I spoke to did not like the idea of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
