Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: UK General Election 2010
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > General > Political & World News
Pages: 1, 2
0bs3n3
So it's been called for 6th May iirc. Who do you support and why? What are your predictions?

Hoping for a Conservative victory myself. I'll expand later if anyone asks.



Am I the only one that thinks this is filmed like a mockumentary?

Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
I'm voting Liberal, as I have at every local and European election in the last 4+ years. In b4 wasted vote bullshit...

I'm guessing the electro-tories will win...but not by as great a margin as their supporters might wish. Remember when there was a fear that great swathes of the electorate might not be able to bring themselves to vote for a black man in the US elections? I think those that remember Thatcher might find their mettle tested when they come to protest vote for the Tories...
0bs3n3
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 7 2010, 01:30 PM) *
I'm voting Liberal, as I have at every local and European election in the last 4+ years. In b4 wasted vote bullshit...


Aren't they really just Labour-lite though? My understanding of the Lib. Dem platform only goes as far as their Wikipedia page sorry.
Pieface
Conservatives, just due to the fact the Labour MP here is a dick, and the Conservative is the only MP I've actually heard from.
Ex-PS Fanboy
Saw it on the news. Then I realized it was British and changed the channel
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 7 2010, 08:25 AM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 7 2010, 01:30 PM) *
I'm voting Liberal, as I have at every local and European election in the last 4+ years. In b4 wasted vote bullshit...


Aren't they really just Labour-lite though? My understanding of the Lib. Dem platform only goes as far as their Wikipedia page sorry.
Not at all, Labour completely changed their character in 1997. Lib Dems are a little like Labour before that change, hence why they have some of Labour's more principled members from the past (eg the possible chancellor-to-be, Vince Cable).

They've been anti-war and anti-banks for a while now, which is in essence why I like them. Not a fan of Nick Clegg, really, but he's the best of three awful, insincere men. David Cameron came and visited my university for a photoshoot in front of the renewable energy research centre, on a weekend without telling any students. Says it all, really.
Heartless
I don't care for the crown myself, but for the sake of topic, I voted BNP.
Mekstizzle
I'm definitely not gonna vote Labour and right now for me it's a toss up between C and LD. Leaning towards C. I still don't know how the Conservatives expect to bring in gains from Midlands/North. Best hope is for regional parties like SNP/that Welsh one to take away Labour seats and Lib Dems

It'll be an interesting outcome

Also I think BNP will win a few seats, almost inevitable, messed up but that's how shit is
DuPz0r
Conservatives can suck my penis. I'm a POOR STUDENT, they have no respect for students, or poor people!

Labour ftw, untill i'm rich anyway!
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
That's pretty self-serving.
DuffMan
If I remember to vote, it'll be for the Pirate Party. None of the big three deserve any votes.
Heartless
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 9 2010, 01:25 PM) *
That's pretty self-serving.


Most liberals generally are.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
How cynical. Everyone expects their vote to cause a revolution, but sometimes small things matter. People are full of anger and vitality, but they refuse to do even the basest duty required to change anything. Your vote might not be a magic bullet, but it's the apathy that gives politicians a mandate to maintain the status quo. This whiny "I-don't-have-overarching-powers" attitude to voting is the reason why there's so little change. It's arrogant, cynical and leads to a self-perpetuating cycle of stagnation and apathy. I don't accept it as a stance.

That said:



Not much change altogether along policy lines. It's sad, how people will say, in their hundreds and thousands "Vince Cable impressed me greatly in the chancellors' debate", and yet on the 22nd of March, very little positive change in voting intentions for the Lib Dems (+0.7% over the week). Tactical voting...

But Samantha Cameron gets pregnant, the Conservatives get a 3.2% boost over 10 days!! People are idiots.
Heartless
In America, the elections are handled a lot different. Over here, we have the electoral college - created in large because the founding fathers feared the uneducated voter. They felt he was easily swayed by yellow journalism, and set up a system to make sure he never had a chance to vote, but felt like he did anyway. That system is still in place today, with only a handful of tiny states having laws that force the electoral to agree with the populist vote.

But never mind that - all parties everywhere really want the same thing anyways. More and more personal power to exert control over their own ant hill. Nobody has your best interests at heart other then yourself.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Well yeah, but you can push in the right direction as much as you can. At the 2001 election, the Liberal Democrats received 17% of the vote and got 6.9% of the seats, so our system isn't fair either.

That's why many (including the Lib Dems, of course) are pushing for electoral form in the shape of "proportional representation", which I'm sure you can imagine favours direct(ish) democracy.
Heartless
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 9 2010, 02:35 PM) *
Well yeah, but you can push in the right direction as much as you can. At the 2001 election, the Liberal Democrats received 17% of the vote and got 6.9% of the seats, so our system isn't fair either.

That's why many (including the Lib Dems, of course) are pushing for electoral form in the shape of "proportional representation", which I'm sure you can imagine favours direct(ish) democracy.


At my age, I've seen seven presidents come and go, and nothing drastic has really changed. Everything has remained mostly the same, albeit more expensive. The promises of parties and party leaders are like really hot lesbians - you hardly see them in real life, and when you do, they want nothing to do with you. But damn it you tell that same story of a magical night in college, right? Because even if you know it isn't true, you want to believe the dream right? No matter how you change the system, we will always be chasing a non-existent black cat in a dark room.

As for the change in electoral form - don't worry. You're political views will change rapidly when you leave uni, but by then it'll be far too late to change anything, and you're eventual retirement at 50 wouldn't be all that you'd hoped for.
DuPz0r
QUOTE (Rick Astley @ Apr 9 2010, 07:14 PM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 9 2010, 01:25 PM) *
That's pretty self-serving.


Most liberals generally are.



It's true, but that is exaclty how the torries are. They tend to look after the rich in thier own interests... ohmy.gif
The Awesome One
Not labour,(Gordon Brown) not BNP, (Chelsea will lose Drogba) so I guess its whoever David Cameron leads!
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE (Rick Astley @ Apr 9 2010, 07:46 PM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 9 2010, 02:35 PM) *
Well yeah, but you can push in the right direction as much as you can. At the 2001 election, the Liberal Democrats received 17% of the vote and got 6.9% of the seats, so our system isn't fair either.

That's why many (including the Lib Dems, of course) are pushing for electoral form in the shape of "proportional representation", which I'm sure you can imagine favours direct(ish) democracy.


At my age, I've seen seven presidents come and go, and nothing drastic has really changed. Everything has remained mostly the same, albeit more expensive. The promises of parties and party leaders are like really hot lesbians - you hardly see them in real life, and when you do, they want nothing to do with you. But damn it you tell that same story of a magical night in college, right? Because even if you know it isn't true, you want to believe the dream right? No matter how you change the system, we will always be chasing a non-existent black cat in a dark room.

As for the change in electoral form - don't worry. You're political views will change rapidly when you leave uni, but by then it'll be far too late to change anything, and you're eventual retirement at 50 wouldn't be all that you'd hoped for.
I'm not sure I buy this. It's common received wisdom that people become more conservative as they grow older. I think it's largely true, because people are unsympathetic and selfish, but I don't think it's necessarily the way. There are a few George Orwells around, continuing to speak in favour of democratic socialism into their old age.

I think (though I can't find the exact quote after a while trying) it was Karl Rove who said "...people tend to vote Republican more, the older they get and the more money they have. Unless they're educated, in that case they vote independent or Democrat."

Which I think says a lot.

QUOTE (DuPz0r @ Apr 9 2010, 08:43 PM) *
QUOTE (Rick Astley @ Apr 9 2010, 07:14 PM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 9 2010, 01:25 PM) *
That's pretty self-serving.


Most liberals generally are.


It's true, but that is exaclty how the torries are. They tend to look after the rich in thier own interests... ohmy.gif
Again, I don't think it's a liberal thing to be self-serving. I try and see it from the other side, but it seems to me that it's brutally obvious that big business, religion, those born into old money, etc., conserve their interests through the right wing more than the unemployed poor do through the left wing. I can see how the working poor vote left though.

As a future doctor, I will lose out from high taxes for the highest earners. As a mostly well-off part time worker from a rich family, it serves society better than it serves me to have inheritance tax. I feel like I've had enough advantages (allowed by this country) to not resent giving a little more back than the poor do.

I'm not voting liberal for self-serving reasons, I do it out of a sense of duty to people who don't have the advantages I do. I'm sure there are many more like me. And so, I think of people who indulge in the politics of self-service as...well, sort of bastards. I also think it's at least equally a trait of the right wing.


QUOTE (Kaptain.Kuntz @ Apr 9 2010, 10:29 PM) *
Not labour,(Gordon Brown) not BNP, (Chelsea will lose Drogba) so I guess its whoever David Cameron leads!
Good to see the electorate is informed and empathetic.
0bs3n3
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 10 2010, 04:35 AM) *
That's why many (including the Lib Dems, of course) are pushing for electoral form in the shape of "proportional representation", which I'm sure you can imagine favours direct(ish) democracy.


Yeah, but proportional representation generally allows smaller parties to gain a greater foothold and encourages them to stand alone. Thus unstable coalition governments are formed leading to political instability (ie. frequent elections) and a government that hardly represents the people. At least that's what I learnt from the Weimar republic.

What system is currently in place? Do you use preferences?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
The system used is referred to as a "first past the post" constituency system -- the first to reach x number of votes wins the constituency. The constituency-winning representative becomes a member of parliament. There are 650 constituencies (though it varies) and so 650 seats in the House of Commons, the main legislative body in the country. I won't bore you with the composition of the less important House of Lords...

Strictly speaking though, it's not "first past the post" but "furthest past the post"; the greatest number of votes wins, not the first to get to x. For no good reason, the media don't use this terminology. The point is, the contest is winner takes all, which is a bit too much like 51% of people voting to opress the other 49% for most people.

The voting and counting is done in one round -- there is no room for transferring votes according to a preference system.

Anyway, proportional representation needn't mean the fall of civilisation and rioting in the streets (see:Wiemar). There are perfectly sensible mechanisms for proportional representation (again I won't go into them at length, Wikipedia covers them perfectly adqeuately).

Honestly though, I think there's an argument to be made for weak government...:

"Listen, a couple of years ago Belgium didn't have a government for 196 days. Life, unsurprisingly, went on. Now I'm afraid there are people who'll snort and say that Belgium isn't a proper country. But would you just take a look at us? Would you honestly look at us, probably about to elect a party in the contemptuous grip of a tax avoider, not 10 minutes after convulsing with anger about our rulers' financial abuses? There's nothing remotely proper about us. "A weak government for a weak country." Admit it, it's a helluva slogan. Join me." - Marina Hyde
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBlDfp85gP8

Smooth and sincere as always...
0bs3n3
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 14 2010, 09:41 AM) *
Smooth and sincere as always...


Because the left totally don't have a monopoly in that department.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Over-arching irrelevant political point-scoring much? Unless you have a reply related to Mr Cameron I would appreciate you didn't try and fight a meta-political battle with me, in this topic at least.
0bs3n3
I heard there is a leaders debate soon. I wonder if it will be broadcast on Sky News Australia...otherwise I'll have to YouTube it.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Quote of the night was "I agree with Nick".

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&...agree+with+nick
Pieface
Brown was so bad in the debate, but then, he's always bad in Prime Ministers Questions. He kept throwing a line to Nick, that Nick didn't want, as you wouldn't really want to be associated with Labour really in this election.

The one thing that annoyed me most was how Alistair Campbell and Lord Mandelson were trying to spin that Brown was amazing, much like the Daily Mirror did (Which was just lolworthy). I don't see how we can even allow Mandelson back into working for Government at all, when he himself has been sacked for Fraud TWICE! I hate Mandelson more than I hate Brown, and boy do I hate Brown.
0bs3n3
Watching it on YouTube now. I heard Brown isn't good at this sort of stuff but wow, just wow.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 16 2010, 11:13 AM) *
Brown was so bad in the debate, but then, he's always bad in Prime Ministers Questions. He kept throwing a line to Nick, that Nick didn't want, as you wouldn't really want to be associated with Labour really in this election.

The one thing that annoyed me most was how Alistair Campbell and Lord Mandelson were trying to spin that Brown was amazing, much like the Daily Mirror did (Which was just lolworthy). I don't see how we can even allow Mandelson back into working for Government at all, when he himself has been sacked for Fraud TWICE! I hate Mandelson more than I hate Brown, and boy do I hate Brown.
Is there any particular reason why you "hate" Brown, or is it just fashionable?


QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 16 2010, 12:08 PM) *
Watching it on YouTube now. I heard Brown isn't good at this sort of stuff but wow, just wow.
He's not great, no. From a tactical standpoint, it's not so bad though. It's not the people who see the debate that matter, as Malcolm Tucker once said:

"Frankly, I think you're getting the wrong advice on the debates. As you know, people who saw Nixon and Kennedy on TV thought Kennedy won, and those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won. But, really, we don't give a flying wad of wet Daily Express about either of these groups. What we need to know is: what about the people who were sitting through JFK-Nixon on the can doodling specs on cartoon-strip pictures of Daffy Duck and making themselves laugh with the sounds of their own farts? Who did they think won? Most people are not going to see these Bestivals of bore. After all, with the 478 debate rules in place they're going to have all the drama of three middle-aged guys fencing with limp dicks. The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think." - Jesse Armstrong

For context, Malcolm Tucker is a fictional character based on Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell, in The Thick of It. He speaks the truth, sadly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...abix-dictaphone the follow-up article, should it interest you.
0bs3n3
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 17 2010, 06:32 AM) *
"The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think."


Very true. But then again, voting is not compulsory in the UK, no?
Pieface
Brown has been a constantly bad chancellor wasting billions of pounds, and lets serveral systems continue to be heavily abused (EMA and Benefits for example). He sells the gold at a record low, yet is breaking the freedom of information act himself by not revealing the figures. And then he becomes a bad PM, with bad policies, and instead of coming up with useful shit to say in his campaign it's always zomg Tories are gonna bring this in, and that in. Not we're going to bring this in, or that in. Look at the party political broadcast by Eddie Izzard which is just full of BS. I mean at least Clegg can appear in his own Broadcast (And it was well done). Brown gets a poor comedian who gains laugh by pretending to be a woman, talking about reasons to try and not vote Tory, not reasons to vote for Labour, and doesn't make an appearance at all.

Best quote of the broadcast, "Now Labour may not be doing that well, but at least they're honest". Why the Death of Sir David Kelly is mysteriously put on hold for 70 years, is being honest. Why the figures on Immigration being honest. Why the little amount of punishment in our crime system is honest I really don't know. Brown resorts to a form of economics which has been proven wrong countless times and just wastes our money in a recession, blames it on America, even though we were/are the last ones going to be out of it, out of the Worlds Major powers. Brown has been nothing but poison for this country. Heck he lied at the Iraq enquiry to the panel.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 17 2010, 12:25 AM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 17 2010, 06:32 AM) *
"The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think."


Very true. But then again, voting is not compulsory in the UK, no?
Well yeah, but even still, votes are always decided by largely uninformed people. Not everyone has the time or the inclination to keep up.


QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 17 2010, 12:34 AM) *
Brown has been a constantly bad chancellor wasting billions of pounds, and lets serveral systems continue to be heavily abused (EMA and Benefits for example). He sells the gold at a record low, yet is breaking the freedom of information act himself by not revealing the figures. And then he becomes a bad PM, with bad policies, and instead of coming up with useful shit to say in his campaign it's always zomg Tories are gonna bring this in, and that in. Not we're going to bring this in, or that in. Look at the party political broadcast by Eddie Izzard which is just full of BS. I mean at least Clegg can appear in his own Broadcast (And it was well done). Brown gets a poor comedian who gains laugh by pretending to be a woman, talking about reasons to try and not vote Tory, not reasons to vote for Labour, and doesn't make an appearance at all.

Best quote of the broadcast, "Now Labour may not be doing that well, but at least they're honest". Why the Death of Sir David Kelly is mysteriously put on hold for 70 years, is being honest. Why the figures on Immigration being honest. Why the little amount of punishment in our crime system is honest I really don't know. Brown resorts to a form of economics which has been proven wrong countless times and just wastes our money in a recession, blames it on America, even though we were/are the last ones going to be out of it, out of the Worlds Major powers. Brown has been nothing but poison for this country. Heck he lied at the Iraq enquiry to the panel.
The gold-selling is a famous old straw-man, Thatcher lost much more in real terms by failing to sell it when the price was at its highest. People just love bringing that up because gold sounds like it should be a good thing. In real terms, it was a pragmatic decision, and not even a particularly bad one. The "loss" is all spin and a lack of understanding of the underlying economics.

When things were going well, the Tories were pushing for more deregulation, more of the Bad Stuff that Brown was doing as chencellor. It's opportunistic as Hell to jump up and down shouting about Labour fucking up the economy. No, Labour happened to be in power when a major recession hit Britain. And it hit Britain harder because of the deregulation under Brown, which the Tories would have done more of. This is unquestionable; it is a central tennet of Conservatism to deregulate finance. The economic past argument has been avoided by the Tories, and wisely so. Even cursory research shows that their argument is as thin as their 2001 constitution...

(hahaha that was a joke about David Cameron writing the shortest and woolliest constitution in British political history im funny)

I'm hardly going to quote on the populism of their advertising: neither Labour nor the Tories are "in touch" with the people. Honesty is not a major trope in politics, so I'm not even going to try and compare two completely dishonest parties on "honesty". But again, the economics would hardly be improved under the deregulation champions of Europe.

Brown might not be perfect, but he's not uniquely evil for a major party leader.
Pieface
I'm not saying morely about Labour getting us into recession, but how they tried to get us out. Keynesian economics is just a poor form of economics, and even though it's been proven wrong a few times, Brown still decided to use it. Labour's only real success has been the Welfare state, although now that's getting abused. Too many mirror's of the days of Callaghan happening at the moment, Unions are slowly starting to run the country, and Brown won't stand against the Unions, why? Because the Unions are too close to Labour and he doesn't want to upset them. Oil has been a major problem under Labour again, such as the huge fluctuating price of petrol, which is about 70% tax, and the comapnies actually get very little per litre. Gordon Brown has spent far too much at the recession due to the form of economics I explained, and now the taxes are rising because of this everywhere.

Thatcher didn't sell the gold, as there was no real reason then to sell it, we weren't in such a huge recessio that we are in now. Surely Gordon Brown's projects could be put on hold, as he would see as a chancellor of the Gold being a low value, that these projects could be funded another way. The Gold was kept mainly as a safety net for a recession (Ironically), but Gordon Brown decided to sell it all in no real economic disaster.
0bs3n3
mello, you do realise there is evidence to suggest that the Keynesian approach to booms and busts actually strengthens the cycle rather than alleviating it right?

With regards to gold, it is cheapest during a boom because everyone moves off gold to derivatives and such, but during a recession people move back into gold as it is obviously much more safer than shares during a downturn (hence raising the price of gold). Not sure on the specifics of the Brown situation but it sounds like he sold it during a boom (poor form).
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 17 2010, 10:12 PM) *
I'm not saying morely about Labour getting us into recession, but how they tried to get us out. Keynesian economics is just a poor form of economics, and even though it's been proven wrong a few times, Brown still decided to use it. Labour's only real success has been the Welfare state, although now that's getting abused. Too many mirror's of the days of Callaghan happening at the moment, Unions are slowly starting to run the country, and Brown won't stand against the Unions, why? Because the Unions are too close to Labour and he doesn't want to upset them. Oil has been a major problem under Labour again, such as the huge fluctuating price of petrol, which is about 70% tax, and the comapnies actually get very little per litre. Gordon Brown has spent far too much at the recession due to the form of economics I explained, and now the taxes are rising because of this everywhere.

Thatcher didn't sell the gold, as there was no real reason then to sell it, we weren't in such a huge recessio that we are in now. Surely Gordon Brown's projects could be put on hold, as he would see as a chancellor of the Gold being a low value, that these projects could be funded another way. The Gold was kept mainly as a safety net for a recession (Ironically), but Gordon Brown decided to sell it all in no real economic disaster.
That's a silly analysis. Much as bailing banks out could be seen as a bad idea for straight-up capitalism, what about the people these banks owe money? What about me? RBS go under, I'm out 4,000. It's the lower earners who suffer in the face of your brash capitalism, thank you very much Mrs. Thatcher.

This is all irrelevant anyway. The Conservatives as much as Labour are commited to liberal intervention in finance as much as they are in military affairs. It's a fine spectre to hold up, until you realise that Cameron and his whips are all for the tough decisions that people resent Labour for. Howard tried it with the Iraq war, Cameron is trying it with economics.

Look: Cameron is a man with a first in PPE from Oxford. He has moved the Tories as left as they've ever been (extreme right in world terms, but still). He has renounced many facets of Thatcherism. I'm not getting into a shitfight about theoretical economics, because this is not an area in which the Conservatives are radically different in their management (bar one caveat) of this recession. Further, they are complicit in bringing about this recession.

The caveat is this: Cameron has made a great show of avoiding an NI hike. He says it will cut jobs. He has 100+ signatures from special interests supportiung his claim, where Labour have 100+ signatures from economists. Ignoring the fact that NI contributions have been marked by an increase in employment at every time they've taken place, Cameron continues to appeal to "business leaders" who want to save 1million more for their own salary. The Lib Dems of course point out that taxes will have to come somewhere else is brushed aside by the Conservatives who plan to make 18billion of cuts without making any cuts. Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks.

The gold was not a great decision, but the implication that it was sold off in some masturbatory display of power is another ridiculous Tory canard. The only reason it became such a big deal was because of the price hike in the recession, which no one in the Labservatives expected.

You're right though, the unions are too close to Labour, just like tax-evading non-doms are too close to Labour. The big two have to maintain their financial and political hegemony some way, and voting Tory is no way to improve the situation.
QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 18 2010, 08:15 AM) *
mello, you do realise there is evidence to suggest that the Keynesian approach to booms and busts actually strengthens the cycle rather than alleviating it right?

With regards to gold, it is cheapest during a boom because everyone moves off gold to derivatives and such, but during a recession people move back into gold as it is obviously much more safer than shares during a downturn (hence raising the price of gold). Not sure on the specifics of the Brown situation but it sounds like he sold it during a boom (poor form).
An idealistic economic argument is to be avoided, if you want to try and defend anLabservative leader. The way Cameron wants to solve problems are basically by magic -- cutting taxes AND the deficit while raising spending. The extra money will come from "efficiency savings", wasted money that the Tories refuse to identify.

I know perfectly well there's evidence for the strengths and weaknesses of every economic system, but neither party would dare deviate from what is basically Keynesian economics. The only real differences are that the Tories want to give more tax breaks for the very richest (the kind that mostly haven't had to work for about 10 generations) and cut admittedly woolly major IT projects.
0bs3n3
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 18 2010, 05:08 AM) *
QUOTE (0bs3n3 @ Apr 17 2010, 12:25 AM) *
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 17 2010, 06:32 AM) *
"The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think."


Very true. But then again, voting is not compulsory in the UK, no?
Well yeah, but even still, votes are always decided by largely uninformed people. Not everyone has the time or the inclination to keep up.


Which do you think is the best system then? Compulsory or non-compulsory?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
I like non-compulsory. It's bad enough, the number of people who decide based on silly things here. I can imagine a Britain where only one in four people that vote do so for any good reason, which could lead to ruin. The kind of people who haven't even heard of Nick Clegg, or who don't know the date of the election, deciding who leads the country? Fuck that.
0bs3n3
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 18 2010, 11:20 PM) *
I like non-compulsory. It's bad enough, the number of people who decide based on silly things here. I can imagine a Britain where only one in four people that vote do so for any good reason, which could lead to ruin. The kind of people who haven't even heard of Nick Clegg, or who don't know the date of the election, deciding who leads the country? Fuck that.


Something I can agree with you on. It's even worse in Australia, I mean we have to be one of the most politically apathetic nations in the world yet voting is compulsory?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
I don't know, our voting figures are in the high 50s I think. But that includes people like my mum who once voted Conservative because the nicest leafletter at the polling station was a Tory.

But then, she was approached recently to run as a Conservative MP (TOUGH ON CRIME, being Scotland's leading female serious crimes prosecutor) so I wonder what that says about the parties' treatment of apathy.
Pieface
I know you hate Thatcher, as that's a part of Scotland, but you need leaders who are tough, like she was. Could you imagine the country now if Callghan stayed in power? Unions probably would have pretty much full control, the miners would still be here, even though when they were destroyed, they were already a dying industry. Thatcher got us very close to USA, which has its benefits, she got us near the top of the EU before Labour destroyed that. Labour are just a weak party, who lied to the country, and to the house of commons to get us to enter into an illegal war, as Blair was too weak to say no to Bush. Brown is too weak to say no to the Unions. It seems to be a theme with Labour. Callaghan was weak to the Unions as well, and his predecessor was just weak generally and didn't care for the country (Hence he left at the worst time possible, because of his age). To be honest there is no good party at all in the UK, and as you say the idiotic section of the population are the reason parties get into power. If you watched Have I Got News For You, it proves it with the old man, and Nick Clegg story.

I'm just wondering, with being a student, how do RBS owe you 4k? Surely you should be getting a huge amount of money, to be taxed that much.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 18 2010, 05:05 PM) *
I know you hate Thatcher, as that's a part of Scotland, but you need leaders who are tough, like she was. Could you imagine the country now if Callghan stayed in power? Unions probably would have pretty much full control, the miners would still be here, even though when they were destroyed, they were already a dying industry. Thatcher got us very close to USA, which has its benefits, she got us near the top of the EU before Labour destroyed that. Labour are just a weak party, who lied to the country, and to the house of commons to get us to enter into an illegal war, as Blair was too weak to say no to Bush. Brown is too weak to say no to the Unions. It seems to be a theme with Labour. Callaghan was weak to the Unions as well, and his predecessor was just weak generally and didn't care for the country (Hence he left at the worst time possible, because of his age). To be honest there is no good party at all in the UK, and as you say the idiotic section of the population are the reason parties get into power. If you watched Have I Got News For You, it proves it with the old man, and Nick Clegg story.

I'm just wondering, with being a student, how do RBS owe you 4k? Surely you should be getting a huge amount of money, to be taxed that much.
The "strong leader" is a favourite myth of politicians. Who were history's strong leaders? It's the military conquerors and the vast oppressors, the hammers of the poor (and in a handful of Communist examples, the middle classes). Bush was re-elected so easily because of the need for a "strong commander-in-chief", and I needn't invoke Godwin's Law to know what the extreme example of what the lust for a strong leader can do.

Another famous misconception, and one much loved by the Conservatives, is that being in thrall to the few strong makes you any stronger than being in thrall to a coalition of the weak. The Tories and Labour are at each other's throats regarding Ashcroft and Whelan, but the fact is neither have a strong case. They are both weak to the demands of different interests, the Tories have just spun it better in recent times.

Further compartmentalisation is evident with regards to US relations: Thatcher was to Reagan as Blair was to Bush, the relationship was not balanced. Thatcher fell into the arms of the United States and made the UK the weak partner in the world's most powerful 3-way alliance (if you include Israel). The fact that she did this against the wishes of the nation means she is regarded as "strong" by her supporters, but simply as a weak bully by the rest of the world. Blair was a wet blanket when it came to standing up to America, but he's not the only one to blame. Not forgetting: the Conservatives backed the Iraq war too. Only the Lib Dems were against it, of the major parties, and that escapes the minds of most Conservative voters.

Now I'm not saying the Lib Dems gaining a significant swing will change the world in the next 5 years by their amazing policies. There are already Tories lining up to say what a shit job every Liberal has done in the cabinet, in the case of a hung parliament. Such is politics. But a significant gain for them nationally is the only conceivable way to stop the rot in British politics. It will stop the marginalisation of ~10% of the informed voting public who tactically vote Labour to block the Conservatives. It will mean that the big two can no longer fuck up, drop out and then wait to get back in when the others fuck up. It will bring the public back into politics, more than any of this "Big Society" bollocks ever could.

Now I don't like Labour and I don't see Brown as any more than a symptom of their hegemony. Cameron is clearly just a car-boot sale Blair. And Clegg is no Nye Bevan himself, but he represents a large majority who have been shunted into voting against their principles by the self-interested Labservative order. Surely, then, the answer is clear to anyone who just doesn't want more Labour?

As for the 4,000, if RBS went under, the money they keep for me would be unrepayable. It's as simple as the banks defaulting on their responsibilities if the money disappears. The point is, it's normal people that would lose out if the banks were allowed to go under, so sadly normal people had to help themselves out there.
Pieface
Strong Leaders are those who can stand up for what they believe in. Hence Churchill was a very strong leader, he said from the beggining that the Nazi's were a threat, even though people put him to the side. He never let down and look where it lead. Thatcher stood up against the Unions and the Miners which lead to the government gaining full control of the country.

Also, you say the Conservatives agreed to the war, you do know that all the parties were mislead through the house of commons, which is what this Iraq enquiry has been proving. Even Blair saying he would of gone in even if he thought there were no WMDs.

Labour have just been constant poison to this country, with lies after lies. The war was a lie, the Money for honours scandal etc.

And I see, I thought you paid a huge amount of tax into RBS, not that you just held money in their account.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE (pieface @ Apr 18 2010, 09:51 PM) *
Strong Leaders are those who can stand up for what they believe in. Hence Churchill was a very strong leader, he said from the beggining that the Nazi's were a threat, even though people put him to the side. He never let down and look where it lead. Thatcher stood up against the Unions and the Miners which lead to the government gaining full control of the country.

Also, you say the Conservatives agreed to the war, you do know that all the parties were mislead through the house of commons, which is what this Iraq enquiry has been proving. Even Blair saying he would of gone in even if he thought there were no WMDs.

Labour have just been constant poison to this country, with lies after lies. The war was a lie, the Money for honours scandal etc.

And I see, I thought you paid a huge amount of tax into RBS, not that you just held money in their account.
I'd appreciate a little less of the "you do know [obvious thing that you probably assume to be a game-changer]", it's a little condescending.

Churchill was a strong leader, and great for wartime. But altogether he was a paranoid maniac, as Operation Unthinkable illustrates. He was a crusader, and probably would've been first into the breach in 2003 if he was the right age for it. He existed at the right time, our heroes don't have to be perfect (and other such platitudes).

Tony Blair was a strong leader. He believed strongly in the need to depose Saddam Hussein. His story is a telling parable about the love of decisiveness and strength of leadership that we espouse as a culture.

The Conservatives can feign innocence as much as they like, but they looove war. Half the reason for the drift right in this country is the left's decimation due to the popularity boost the Falklands handed to Thatcher. The ability to depose a tyrant at the side of the USA was irresistible to Tory types, and that is why they voted, almost without exception, for it.
Darth Sexy
QUOTE (Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester @ Apr 17 2010, 06:32 AM) *
"Frankly, I think you're getting the wrong advice on the debates. As you know, people who saw Nixon and Kennedy on TV thought Kennedy won, and those who heard it on the radio thought Nixon won. But, really, we don't give a flying wad of wet Daily Express about either of these groups. What we need to know is: what about the people who were sitting through JFK-Nixon on the can doodling specs on cartoon-strip pictures of Daffy Duck and making themselves laugh with the sounds of their own farts? Who did they think won? Most people are not going to see these Bestivals of bore. After all, with the 478 debate rules in place they're going to have all the drama of three middle-aged guys fencing with limp dicks. The only ones watching are going to be the pointless bastards who already know what they think." - Jesse Armstrong

For context, Malcolm Tucker is a fictional character based on Labour spin doctor Alastair Campbell, in The Thick of It. He speaks the truth, sadly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...abix-dictaphone the follow-up article, should it interest you.

I know nothing about British politics, but all I can say to that is this. Welcome to Australia.
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Heh.

Parliament is hung like a donkey.
demon
Didn't know the UK was a democracy. XD.png
0bs3n3
Yeah ok I don't get it. It seems like all the candidates are attempting to look as 'moderate' as possible, to the point where they all start sounding the same. Why have the Lib Dems distinguished themselves especially? I watched the debates and he sounds exactly like the other two, except possibly more confident.
Pieface
Lib Dems look like they're doing well, and distinguishing themselves because the other two won't dare dig into him. Clegg has got them both at his feet, because if it goes to a hung parliament, he's the one to decide who he goes and supports.
0bs3n3
Nick Clegg: "Can I just move beyond the political point scoring..."

"I'm totally with you there Edwina..."

Wolf in sheeps clothing detected. Are people forgetting he's a politician like any other?
Pieface
He got too cocky in the last debate, which is why he never won. He looked like a twat in the end.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.