 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (3)recycle big dariusgriffin ...and 81 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614080 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I didn't until Newsnight yesterday; his last session in parliament looked quite fun, and I was a little surprised at the tributes which came from all sides. See ya Tone! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't even know who the current prime minister of canada is. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Chris Benoit |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I noticed yesterday then i had fish 'n' chips for supper. no ale or lager though. drank cold PBR. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's the one. I hear he's to be replaced by Brett "The Hitman" Hart as P.M. of Canadaland (soon to be the 53rd U.S. state). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
WANT TO SEE WHOS SPYING ON YOUR PROFILE?href="http://LAZY_URL" target=_blank>CLICK_HERE |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually the 54th state...England is the 53rd |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You're confusing a mediocre film with a mediocre reality, Afro. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The film was 51st state :P |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Oh god dammit, you're right ain't ya, ya bast! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
:) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
haha the second point was that the effect of the drug was was being referred to as the 51st state and not as many beleive Britain. the film was called formula 51 in the states. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Cylob for Prime Minister |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
So who voted for this chap again? Oh yes, one of the government parties. I'm soimplementation of 'democracy'. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How does the English system work? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm afraid the sight of Sam Jackson in a kilt completely addled my brain while watching that film! [/excuse] It's been so long i've probably got it completely wrong and it'll turn out he wasn't even wearing a kilt. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's like a spot the ball competition, but this time he has done it with words. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Some of the populace (although not in any way shape or form, the majority) voted for the labour, under the belief that they would have Blair as prime minister. Blair then stands down and his party (not the populace) get to choose his successor. In short, we have a prime minister no one in the country actually voted for and we can't get rid of him till potentially as late as June 2010. Charisma is what gets you voted in to power here (as most of the 'tards in this country vote on 'individuals', rather than policy, hence the fucked-up situation whereby the majority of the populace believe conservatice policies to be the best, but haven't voted for them because of the image of the party*). Bearing this in mind, it's interesting that a party hasn't put forwards a charismatic well liked leader, to get them into power, then booted them out and replaced them with the 'real' intended PM. Not a lot the public could do if anyone did do it, short of not vote for them at re-election time. As an aside, I bloody hated Blair, but Gordon doesn't look much better. His shocking lack of comprehension of basic economics alone should be enough to prevent him running the country half-decently. *Yes, there were independent studies done that prove this, before our left-biased board start banging on about how everyone hates tory policies. NB: dave_g's explanation is more concise and probably just as accurate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What do you mean, not the majority? The party won, but not by a majority vote? Is it because low election attendance/blank votes, or did a majority of people indeed vote for the other party, but then they decided to keep this one instead? Anyway, I think it's a good thing that you can't technically vote for a person even though that's what a lot of people do anyway; vote for a party and its policies, not a person and his face. Despite the studies, are you sure people actually want conservative values, or do they just want what you believe you're going to get when someone who believes in liberalism tells you about liberalism (which basically goes as far as them going on and on about "freedom to choose!" (freedom is good, but liberalistic "freedom to choose!!!" is a freedom I wouldn't even give a cup of warm pee for)). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Primarily low election turnout, but there's also the stupid system (a bit like in America) where your vote counts more in certain bits of the country than others. I'd also prefer people voting for parties over faces. I just think it's funny that they have had this situation by accident, rather than design. No, the study was quite specific. People were given copies of each party's stances on much discussed/important issues (education, healthcare, immigration, transport, civil liberties, etc.), but without the name of the party on them. They were then asked which set of policies were best. The majority (by quite some way, 80%ish IIRC) said the conservative policies were best. A control group saw the same policies, but with the party names next to each of the sets of policies and the majority didn't choose the conservative's one (the only plausible reason being the name/image of the party). I know I say it a lot on here, as people's perception of me is quite right wing, but that's right wing by zilty standards. People don't seem to realise how comparatively right wing the UK is (we have a 'labour' government, so we must all be socialists, right?) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No one voted for Tony Blair, other than the residents of Sedgefield anyway. The electoral system is flawed, get over it. It is unlikely that it will change since it will have to be done via an act of parliament, hence the problem. Why eliminate the system which allows you to remain in power? I am totally of the opinion that all 3 "major" parties (ho ho ho libdems major???!) are as useless as each other currently. I am a traditional tory voter, yet Cameron is awful. Trying to emulate blair is such a bad idea I could never "vote for him", yet at the polls I would re-elect our current tory MP because she is better than the rest - interesting! I'm quite drawn towards Brown at the moment. He is making the right noises and I'm willing to forget his past if his actions reflect his words. He has had time to prepare himself for office so hopefully won't cock it up too soon. If he can eliminate the culture of celebrity, which Blair was part of (and Cameron is trying to copy) then I'll be glad. I tend to agree with Peter Hichens' idea of the "useless tories" needing to dissolve and produce a new party. Until then I'll give Brown the benefit of the doubt (for now at least) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
That's not the only plausible reason... If I was given a list of each party's policy, but without the name, I could quite possibly agree with more of the right wing policies (I mean, who doesn't agree with spending more on education and healthcare?), but without knowing what type of party it is, I wouldn't know what other consequences there would be.. you say the list was on much discussed/important issues. These issues are precisely those day-to-day things like you mention in the parenthesis, but politics is about way more, and if you see a smaller increase in spending on one party's side than on the other, that's because the one has something else it doesn't want to cut. If I don't know what type of party it is, I wouldn't know what they're more likely to cut; right-wing parties are more likely to privatise and stuff like that, basically giving Average Joe a more limited access to these things, but disguising it as giving him "more to choose from wahooo!" I'm not doubting that quite a few people do indeed vote for person or image, but I couldn't make a decision about what to vote for if I didn't know (a) the full picture (preferable to (b)) or (b) what type of party has the limited set of values that are presented to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He shouldn't get over it if he thinks there's something wrong with the political system; he should fight to change it! If everyone just "gets over it," sure, it won't change, but if everyone does something to change it, I'm pretty sure it will. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
O.K. one thing to remember is that in the U.K. the people vote for the party they wish to hold power, not the person. If a leader steps down (or is challenged), then the party vote in a new leader. They don't get an extra 5 years in office, that 5 year period still counts from whenever the last General Election was. So, they have done nothing politically or legally wrong. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And also, I'm pretty sure Blair made it clear before the election that he'd stand down during his next term if he was elected (I think this is correct), so the electorate weren't deceived in that regard. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ha-ha I know - we've had about 8 years' warning that this was going to happen! I don't predict any rioting in the streets :] |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Haha yeah, it's suprising how quiet it's been with the change over in power. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
w.t.f. I've just read that Bush wants to dissolve the Canadian and Mexican borders to become one large country with a currency called the Amero... this must be some kind of joke; must investigate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh you ppl are great! you don't give a fuck about anything, do you? ooohh... this place is great |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sorry, perhaps I didn't myself clear: Yes, I know from a technical point of view in the UK we vote for parties, but the reality is, most people vote based on people (which I agree they shouldn't). Most people (aside from those who vote for the same party year in year out, regardless of the candidate, but those people are dying out) vote based on how the big, well known politicians carry themselves, are represented in the press, their charisma, etc. Even though they technically vote for joe bloggs local conservative MP, most of those people are actually voting for "That nice Dave Cameron chap (TM)'s party" in the sense that it is him that convinces them to vote conservative, irrespective of who their local MP is (provided there hasn't been a lot of sleaze/bad press about them recently). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On another note, re: your comments regarding the policies DM. You make it sound like all policies cost money to implement and if you do some good somewhere, something else important suffers, or is underfunded. I'd say that at best this over-simplifying things and at worst is wildly inaccurate. A couple of examples; The historic (prior to Dave Cameron) conservative viewpoint was that grammar schools were to be encouraged. The idea being that they gave kids who couldn't afford to go to private schools (I'm not refereing to them by their common name, as it'd confuse the hell out of non-uk people ;-) ) a chance at getting a good education and bettering themselves, if they showed promise. They not only benefit the kids who go to them, but also the kids in the other schools in the surrounding catchment area, as they don't feel stupid at being in the lower classes and hence are less disruptive (for this reason studies show these surrounding schools also perform better!). The cost of implementing them is less than 0 (in the long term it brings in more money) as it means a more skilled/trained workforce, in better jobs, paying more tax. All the anti-grammar school propoganda is utter bollocks and their are good counter-arguments for every reason against them. In short, they're borne out of an over-emphasis on some percieved egalitarian "no man left behind" utopia where everyone is exactly the same. If a party is for them, I don't see any downside to this policy. Likewise, if people disagree this this principle, fair enough, but they should be able to draw their conclusion from the policy if they have a modicum of intellect and I don't see the hidden down side. Forgot to include in my previous post: I know you (and I, and probably a fair few people here) vote for 'good reasons'. But let's be blunt, we're a fair bit more intelligent and interested in politics than the majority of voters. Remember, most of these people follow "the cult of celebrity" when making their decisions. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Sure, some things may pay off in the long run, but other things don't. Let's say you cut people's taxes, maybe you even introduce flat taxing (which the major right populist party here in Norway wants to do) and at the same time you spend more on building new roads. Sure, that could pay off with certain goods being shipped faster, but there are limits to how much improvement a new road can give on this, and at the same time there are costs beyond what can be measured in money: Damage to the environment due to more people driving cars (said party doesn't believe in global warming either, btw). A better investment here would be a more efficient train-system. Anyway, when you see this party (the Norwegian populist one) proposing building more roads, you know what lingers in the background (tax cuts and thus an increased spending of the oil fund). The other parties don't tend to propose building new roads too often, but if they did, I would know there wouldn't be a tax cut or increased oil fund spendings (at least not on something as useless as a new road). The same goes for right vs left, if both say "We're going to make schools better!" You can't disagree with that, but if you know which party said it, you'll know that for the right wing side, "better" means privatising, and for the left side "better" means actually spending more money on giving everyone an equal opportunity in the existing schools. So it does matter which party proposes the road, if you don't see the whole picture all at once on that test. I also want to point out that your use of egalitarian doesn't really match up with what it means. Egalitarian means that everyone has equal rights and opportunities, and yes, indeed, that no man should be left behind but it does not mean that everyone is the same. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
actually i knew about it 2 days ago |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The reason some people (not me) say grammar schools is are not egalitarian is precisely because they believe they effectively write-off (and 'leave behind') those who don't get in to them. Without wishing to get into a debate on semantics/the meaning of words, surely this perception of grammar schools being an elitist system that reinforces a heirarchy is the precise opposite of the equality that egalitariansim is supposed to promote? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I'm not sure what your point is. I was just pointing out that you used egalitarian as a negative thing, implying that an egalitarian society would result in everyone turning out to be the exactly the same, and that's not what it means at all. It's just because I see that argument a lot. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
