So the British general election is upon us and I thought I'd take this opportunity to say "VOTE LIB DEM!"
That is all...
oh also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/18/clegg-media-elite-murdoch-lib-dem is yet another good reason why you should "VOTE LIB DEM!"
You mean I can vote there? Wow!
Ah, the Lib Dems...The lesser of three evils.
I suppose I would vote Lib Dem. If I was British.
Which I'm not.
...
The lib dems do have strong policies to favour bald mice.
Namely the commission of tiny little coats.
As a citizen of Northern Ireland, I may either vote for the Conservatives, or a local party who can't go to Westminster.
Yay, democracy.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Mon 19/04/2010 20:23:17
So the British general election is upon us and I thought I'd take this opportunity to say "VOTE LIB DEM!"
That is all...
I agree. Vince Cable is our Obama.
Admittedly he's better at sums than basketball and he's white, balding and northern, and he's not the Lib Dem leader... but he's Britain's key politician people don't hate and if he asked me I would give him my shoes.
Unless I can brush up on my politics between now and then, I'm probably not going to vote... truth is, I don't really feel that strongly about any particular party and I don't really follow politics enough to make an informed opinion. People always say 'everyone should vote', but mine would be an ignorant vote, and I think that could do more harm than good... most people who go to the polls do so with opinions based on the poster campaigns and tabloid headlines... I'd rather not be one of those people.
You can't avoid politics. Choosing not to vote is political decision favouring the groups who hold sway over the media, the economy and our political system. Watching the TV debates at least will only take a few hours of your life...
Or just vote lib dem.
And if a reporter gets you and asks you why just say you really like yellow.
This Lib Dem thing is getting a bit silly.
I suggest people watch some Labour events properly, you will find plenty of well researched policy and none of this vacuous "vote for change" to which I say "change to what?" that the Conservatives are so guilty of and that, with their new found support, the Lib Dems are succumbing to...
Also, incredibly surprised no one has pointed out that "conservative" means "anti-change" yet - at least the last time I looked at an English Dictionary.
Vote Liberal Conservalabour.
Cameron is a very honest guy but I just don't like some of his policies. Lib dems have put up a strong debate but they have background policies usually which are goblydegook. But I'm willing to listen further. Labour - if they just had a decent leader I would probably vote for them. I actually like a lot of Labour policies but just have lost credibility for GB. There doesn't seem to be a fresh, willing face in Labour as it stands. We definitely need a NEW person in place, but I don't like the "vote for change" tagline. You can't just rip off the Obama angle and expect it to work here with everyone. But I do respect giving another party the chance to tipple the balance of Labour and see where they can lead us.
Some people won't discuss who they're voting which is fine, but I do - at the end of the day to me all it is we're really doing is giving some group the ability to run our lives for us so we can just sit back and do stuff, & pay them. I'll probably vote Lib Dem. It's one step closer to anarchy and a country free of government ::) That said, it could be one step closer to getting the scum off our streets - which is far better! Then again no, you'd need conservatives for that. Gah, bloody politics.
Quote from: Ali on Tue 20/04/2010 00:13:39Choosing not to vote is political decision favouring the groups who hold sway over the media, the economy and our political system.
In what way?
QuoteWatching the TV debates at least will only take a few hours of your life...
Yeah, I watched the first one, and will probably catch the others out of curiosity, but it's not enough to base a political allegeance on. They all say some stuff I agree with and some stuff I don't so much. I don't really conform to a particular '-ism' or wing, so short of sifting through the manifestos and making lists of pros and cons (which I dont have time for at the moment) theres not a lot a can do right now but waive my right to vote and trust that at least some of those who do vote know what they're talking about.
Not participating in the election of future leaders of your country is, at the bare minimum, morally lazy and, at worst, just plain stupid. Sooner or later you'll be one of those people lamenting the bad choices 'other people' made in electing officials you find corrupt, meanwhile you put exactly 0 effort into affecting the outcome and have no right to criticize. Basically, now more than ever you need to be informed about the true motivations of would-be elected officials and do your damndest to make sure they aren't going to drive your country farther into the shitter, farther away from personal freedoms and civil liberties, and closer to socio-fascism. That is your duty as a citizen of whatever country you occupy and not to embrace that duty just makes you look rather grey and dead to other people who are conscientious and trying to better lives by making informed decisions.
In short: voting is not pointless, it's not worthless, but it is your only means of exercising your individual liberty to elect/depose officials who will be deciding your fate thereafter. Taking advantage of it is a privilege, not a hassle.
This party political broadcast brought to you by the people who want people to make informed, rational voting decisions and to participate in electing the future leaders of their nations.
That said, I'm not precisely sure if 'Lib Dem' translates 100% to Liberal Democrat in the American sense, but if it does I would never ever ever ever ever recommend that route to anyone believing in individual freedoms and civil liberties. History has shown time and again that Democrats (and especially liberal Democrats) are quite happy and pleased with themselves when they pass legislation that trades personal freedoms for what they deem the greater good. This is a morally disingenuous position because only the people should decide what 'greater good' means by way of vote, not forced into a mandate by people who are no longer representing their constituents (this is where I point at Obama and the Democratic so-called leadership and call Shenanigans at their dismissal of the multiple popular polls against the healthcare bill). Whether or not you agree with the concept of socialized medicine is irrelevant in the greater argument of whether or not the people wanted it. The point I'm making is that, when you take no action, men and women who only listen to special interests and themselves get elected and they do NOT represent you.
So get out there and vote, kids. Win one for the Gipper! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gipper)
I agree with everything progz said... except the part about them damned democrats taking away our rights.
The political spectrum is far more narrow in the UK than the US and everyone kinda mills around the centre right which makes it far less of an ideological choice and more of a choice of specific policies and the lib dem policies make sense.
In fact its arguable that the conservatives are no more conservative than Labour, possibly less so on certain issues. Cameron describes himself as a "liberal conservative" which seems to be relatively true. He has recently begun to support gay rights for instance, albeit in a rather wet fashion. Compared to what an American would consider conservative, Cameron might as well be flying Lenin's flag.
However there are several things that I think should push you towards voting Lib Dem:
- Introduction of a UK constitution which means certain laws and practices can be struck down as unconstitutional. This especially applies to human rights issues such as the recent Digital Economy bill. Currently human rights issues would generally need to be taken the european court of human rights.. which takes a while.
- Electoral reform. Currently the electoral system in the UK is frankly broken and they plan to reform it.
- An elected House of Lords. This is an excellent idea since, currently the laws our elected politians put forward can be thrown out by unelected ones.. how is that democracy?
- Scrapping of tuition fees for student's first degree
An interesting point about Nick Clegg is that he is an open atheist. Imagine that in the US...
And they opposed the war in Iraq.
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 20/04/2010 01:18:05
Quote from: Ali on Tue 20/04/2010 00:13:39Choosing not to vote is political decision favouring the groups who hold sway over the media, the economy and our political system.
In what way?
Because the election will still happen if a tiny minority will turn out to vote. And there will still be a new government, even if the majority of people don't want to see them in power.
I agree with ProgZ's answer to your question, really, though as a stinkin' leftie I completely disagree with his politics.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 20/04/2010 06:46:55That said, I'm not precisely sure if 'Lib Dem' translates 100% to Liberal Democrat in the American sense, but if it does I would never ever ever ever ever recommend that route to anyone believing in individual freedoms and civil liberties. History has shown time and again that Democrats (and especially liberal Democrats) are quite happy and pleased with themselves when they pass legislation that trades personal freedoms for what they deem the greater good. This is a morally disingenuous position because only the people should decide what 'greater good' means by way of vote, not forced into a mandate by people who are no longer representing their constituents (this is where I point at Obama and the Democratic so-called leadership and call Shenanigans at their dismissal of the multiple popular polls against the healthcare bill). Whether or not you agree with the concept of socialized medicine is irrelevant in the greater argument of whether or not the people wanted it. The point I'm making is that, when you take no action, men and women who only listen to special interests and themselves get elected and they do NOT represent you.
Not sure if that healthcare bill is perfect, actually I'm sure it's not. Still I can't believe you'd say that about "forced greater good". Didn't the Republicans do something along the lines "we can hold you in interogation without cause as long as we want", tapping phone lines and similar. Yes, taking away your constitutional freedom is ok, but giving you an option (as in choose if you want social healthcare or go with private) to provide healthcare for ie your sick child, even if you don't have a job, well that's just pure evil. ::)
USA are so far away from real democracy as you can get, nothing really is directly influenced by your vote - points are awards by states and if you'd ignore that, there is still the fact that you're choice is extremly limited (only 2 main parties, 1 candidate per party etc.). My country is f-ed up so much we have more voters in total than we have actual residents, but we still have about 10 or more parties/candidates to vote for in elections.
Oh, and lets not forget those polls, if the people who are for it are the same as the ones who protested - like carrying an automatic f-in rifle to a rally!? There is no room for arguments and logical disscusion with a man who carries a rifle to a protest for a freakin' healthcare bill!
@Stupot: (note: this is a limited comparisson) saying you're not "into" politics is like deciding you're not into money. Yes, you can ignore it and relativly not use it, but it won't stop it for controlling your life in one way or another.
And remember: with great power, comes great responsibility! :P
If I felt I did know more about the leaders' true motivations, then I would vote without a doubt. And I will try to brush up between now and May 6th. But come that day, I'm not going anywhere near a polling station unless I think I know what I'm talking about. Voting isn't a duty, it's a right. Surely my duty is to make the best decision I can with the knowlegde I've got, and I beleive people who are not well-informed should stay the hell away from the ballot box.
So many people see to have some kind of Lib Dem Fever at the moment. Fair play, some, like Calin, have made that decision because he's read up on the policies and decided that is the best option for what he believes in and what he wants. Others, and a large proportion of them, have done so for no other reason because he "pwnd" in the televised debate, and because the tabloids seem to like him.
If I choose not to vote, it won't be because I'm lazy "morally lazy" or "just plain stupid". I won't even be wasting my vote in the same way as the people who can't be arsed to go to the polling booth. Hell, if they had an extra box on the ballot paper marked 'Sorry, I'm too ill-read to make an informed allegeance', then I would make the trip to the polls for it, if only to add my number to the turn-out figures, which are always very low in this country.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Tue 20/04/2010 06:46:55
History has shown time and again that Democrats (and especially liberal Democrats) are quite happy and pleased with themselves when they pass legislation that trades personal freedoms for what they deem the greater good.
This is where our libdems are different... they have never passed ANY legislation! :=
If I was British I would probably vote LibDem...
or whoever has the silliest accent...
Libdems in the UK aren't the same idea as in the USA. In fact, the notions of "Political Liberal" in the USA and UK are different, the former based on more classical notions of liberalism espoused by Locke and Hobbes. It's liberalism of "less powerful government", rather than the american liberalism of "socially liberal policy".
Anyhow enough of that boring bit. I'm voting yellow, partly because I want to help effect a significant change in the political landscape, partly because they're the ones with their heads the least in their arses about data and internet policy, and partly because I'm a big big fan of proportional representation.
Incidentally, in about five years, I intend to run for parliament in my area. Anyone in North Dorset and Poole, I'm your future MP! (he wishes)
I don't understand not wanting to vote. Why wouldn't you want to impact on the country you live in?
This is the first general election I am eligible to vote in, I know I'm excited to make a choice that will affect the next 5 years, all of my peers at University are also keen to vote.
It isn't hard to inform yourself about the election/parties/policies/candidates, if you feel like you don't know enough to vote, and you really AREN'T being lazy, inform yourself and then vote. Simple as.
If you don't vote, then any bad decisions that get made are YOUR FAULT.
Quote from: Zooty on Tue 20/04/2010 14:04:12
I don't understand not wanting to vote. Why wouldn't you want to impact on the country you live in?
This is the first general election I am eligible to vote in, I know I'm excited to make a choice that will affect the next 5 years, all of my peers at University are also keen to vote.
It isn't hard to inform yourself about the election/parties/policies/candidates, if you feel like you don't know enough to vote, and you really AREN'T being lazy, inform yourself and then vote. Simple as.
If you don't vote, then any bad decisions that get made are YOUR FAULT.
I don't how the situation is in England, but here in Greece the past 4 years I could vote, I haven't. People tell me "Your ancestors fought for that right with blood".Well you are all aware of the great politicians we have in Greece. Check for 'Greece in debt'. There's no single party that I'm with even for a 1%. There's no political thought expressing me. I always knew there was something wrong with politics when the most idiot guy in class, though very popular became the president.
If I vote white, the winning party gets it. So why help them?
If I vote wrong, same as above.
If I vote someone who's actually oblivious that I voted for him, he'll think we agree.
So no sirs, I don't vote ,to scream that I exist. To have the illusion that it will change something. When I feel they're worthy for my vote, I'll be more than glad to vote. Till then no go.
Dualnames is right.
Let's just all not vote!
But lets not confine that to just the AGS forums.. Everyone in the country should just not vote...
I cant see any problem with that idea...
Lib Dems will reppeal the Digital Economy Bill.
You know, that bill which sees you disconnected from the internet and fined, a sentence handed down by an unelected official who is not even a judge but a civil servant, and a penalty which you cannot appeal against because they inherently need no actual proof to hand it out to you? You know, that Digital Economy Bill?
That's reason enough to vote Lib Dem, don't you think?
Everyone should vote yeh?
Even these people?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/dont-panic-post/post/dont_panic/14/should-everyone-be-allowed-to-vote.html
I know it was cleverly edited to make them look a bit more stupid than they actually are, but I think this backs up my argument that ignorant people shouldn't vote.
Quote from: Stupot on Tue 20/04/2010 16:27:04http://uk.news.yahoo.com/elections/dont-panic-post/post/dont_panic/14/should-everyone-be-allowed-to-vote.html
I peed... "I know- maps are hard."
But greece has proportional representation? So even though the current lot made a big mess of the economy, it is quite reasonable to believe that your vote can make a difference, if you just keep putting up with something you are unhappy with, then things will never change.
I don't claim to know anything about Greek politics though, and I'm sure the situation is different to here. In the UK it is possible to make a national change by voting locally (from what I can see that is also possible in Greece, proportional representation means its much easier to get a smaller voice heard)
I don't think disengaging yourself from politics altogether is a meaningful action in any way, it just shows you don't care enough to make a difference, or if it comes to it, protest the system. (I'd like to insert a Zimbabwe proviso to that statement)
Look, Zooty, Greece politicians are like pigs. They're all alike. I'm not voting for anyone. It's not that I don't think he's gonna do anything good. I'm dead certain he won't. Your politicians once stole 100 pounds to pay a dinner, and when the fraud was found, the money was returned. Having a scandal in Greece is like expecting sun. They've stolen terrible amounts and no ends up returning money or going to jail!
Quote from: Dualnames on Tue 20/04/2010 19:56:12
They've stolen terrible amounts and no ends up returning money or going to jail!
Yeah, from what I've read, Greece does seem to have some pretty severe problems.
We have similar problems in Ireland. The need for ministers to account for expenses is largely voluntary, and figures are never made public. We've had tribunals about our "brown envelope" culture; very few people have ever been successfully prosecuted. And nobody has ever been labeled "corrupt". Our banking system is a joke, with the taxpayer footing the punchline.
At least in the UK heads rolled over lawn furniture and moats. On the other hand, their police force seems to live in an alternate dimension, and various MPs seem to be finding new and exciting ways to define "freedom".
(http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/1306/votefornobody.png)
I believe that's painted on a wall somewhere in Guelph, ON (probably multiple locations around the world, but hey). I could be wrong, but I totally remember sleeping in the car after getting drunk at the bar and seeing that in front of me.
In my experience, where I come from, if you're too clever not to vote, then you allow all the idiots to go and make the worst choice of all....
Then, also, in my experience, those "choices" sometimes get onto planes and...............................................................
Out of curiosity, which British party is closest to the American Libertarian party?
I want to recommend this text by friends of mine:
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?†(http://www.junge-linke.org/en/you-mean-they-actually-vote-for-the-lizards/)
Quote from: Anteater on Thu 22/04/2010 18:05:14
Out of curiosity, which British party is closest to the American Libertarian party?
Difficult answer; the American Libertarian party is pretty much smack in the middle of the political spectrum between the conservative party and the liberal democrat party. They're more economically/fiscally right than the liberal democrats and also hold views of a larger government role, however they're less authoritative and not quite as hard right as the conservative party. Essentially there is nothing "close." It depends on the issues closest to your heart. Ultimately the LibDems are more liberal (still more right-wing than "centrist" or TRUE liberal, just MORE liberal than the Consv. Party) and libertarian where the conservatives are more authoritative and... well, conservative. The Labour party is almost as liberal as the LibDems on the social spectrum but far more authoritative than any American party... while the "BNP" is slightly more centrist economically and even MORE authoritative (read" "Big Gov't" i.e. Universal CCTV, etc.) than the Labour party...
So the American Libertarian party is a nice median between the Conservatives and the liberal democrats. If you're more interested in a smaller government and greater personal freedoms and more humanitarian principles then you'd lean LibDem. If you like your government with strong central control and more conservative fiscal/economic ideas and typically more "conservative" social/technological/scientific/etc views than you would lean conservative... but there's really no British analog of the American Libertarian party... Similarly, there is no analog for the LibDem party in America. Essentially the conservative party is SLIGHTLY less authoritative than the American Republican party and slightly more conservative. That would probably lead you to believe that LibDem party is a closer analog of the Libertarian party but they're drastically more libertarian (believe it or not) and also harder left (although they're mostly centrist or right-leaning centrist.)
(http://www.politicalcompass.org/charts/uk2010.php)
Go 3 lines down and 3 lines left from the conservative party and that's roughly the coordinates for the American Libertarian party.
Interesting map! According to my survey on that website, and on another website, they think I should vote Green.
And Questionable, you mean "authoritarian", not "authoritative" :=
Quote from: SSH on Fri 23/04/2010 07:07:14
Interesting map! According to my survey on that website, and on another website, they think I should vote Green.
And Questionable, you mean "authoritarian", not "authoritative" :=
Yes... Sorry about that.
I should "technically" vote green (If I were British) but I think that voting for a party with no realistic chance of winning this election and risking allowing the greater evils to prevail would force my hand in voting LibDem. After and outside the general election I would have to support and help develop the green movement, but not until that have a chance of contention for a minority stake (as opposed to several seats) in parliament would I cast the penultimate ballot for them. Then again- I'm American and young, so WTF do I know?! =P
PARTY!!!!!
Just before the votes come in, check out this candidate:
http://www.madcapntom.co.uk/
It's the guy who runs the UK contingent of Talk Like A Pirate Day, and his experience includes: "Once got five gold runs on Blockbusters" and "Third place in th' 2002 Barry Island Dance Dance Revolution championship".
Maybe reading this will help offset the impending misery!
Five Gold Runs? Legend!
What happened to the Lid-Dem hype? I was quite surprised when I learned they lost seats compared to previous election.
Good question.
I'm pretty annoyed at the whole thing.
Now it looks like Clegg has a choice of a informal arrangement with the conservatives (who clegg says have the right to try and form a government) but without proportional representation or forming a lib/lab coalition to get proportional representation.
I don't envy him right now.
Overall i think i'd rather another year (I would guess another election will be called within 12 months) with Gordon Brown if it means we finally get rid of the unelected house of lords and get proportional representation.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 07/05/2010 12:23:28
Overall i think i'd rather another year (I would guess another election will be called within 12 months) with Gordon Brown if it means we finally get rid of the unelected house of lords and get proportional representation.
I'm curious: I understand why you would like to shift towards a proportional representation, but are you aware that, along with lib-dems, parties such as BNP an UKIP would get a boost and almost veto power inside a coalition?
I wasn't specifically aware of that although now i think about it, it seems obvious.
However I believe it would be a price worth paying in exchange for a more valid form of democracy.
Quote from: bicilotti on Fri 07/05/2010 12:17:04
What happened to the Lid-Dem hype? I was quite surprised when I learned they lost seats compared to previous election.
It confused me too, but at least the Greens got a seat! It's a start.
Plus, if the Libdems can get any clout as part of a coalition, then it's a little step closer to proportional representation.
Actually Calin, the Conservatives don't have that right. They won the most seats out of any party, but they failed to reach the threshold for forming a minority or coalition government. It's Gordon Brown's right as the incumbent to remain in office until it has been decided who would be best to form a government, and he's perfectly welcome to say that would be Labour and Lib Dem.
Cameron is piling on the pressure, claiming that his effective majority gives him the right to try to form a coalition, and it seems like Clegg agrees with him to some extent. It's certainly looking like the Lib Dems are going to control the outcome of the election after all.
Also, in response to the Lib Dem's poor election results, they actually did a lot better than you'd think. They won about 23% of the votes. Labour won 29%, and the Conservatives won 36%. And yet, the Conservatives won 6 times as many seats. Under a nominally "fairer" system, the Lib Dems would hold around 149 seats, Labour would hold 188, and the Conservatives 234.
I'm sure receiving less press is the amazing upset in Northern Ireland, so I'll tell you a bit about that. The most important news is that the leaders of two of the main parties lost their seats. The DUP's Peter Robinson lost his East Belfast seat to the Alliance party (Lib Dem) following a torrid series of personal and political scandals. Even more shocking is that the Ulster Unionist Party failed to win even a single seat, with their leader Reg Empey losing in South Antrim and likely now stepping down as the leader of the party. Their previous only MP, Lady Sylvia Hermon, left the party to run as an Independent following the link with the Conservative party, and won with a massive majority of the vote in her North Down constituency. To put this in context for you, this is massive; the leaders of two of the main parties, and the two main Unionist parties at that, have lost their seats. The result for Fermanagh has yet to be returned because there were only 8 votes in it, but the shocking result is that the DUP looks to have won a seat away from Sinn Fein, in the middle of Republican heartland.
Another fascinating tidbit of news, quite fascinating, is in South Down where we see Unionists voting for the SDLP, as a tactical measure to prevent Sinn Fein's Catriona Ruane from returning to power. It really feels amazing to be living in a time where the people of Northern Ireland can put aside tribal politics for just a little while, recognising that there is a common evil who must be vanquished. For those of you who don't know, Catriona Ruane is the Stormont MLA who removed our academic selection system and replaced it with... nothing. Not even an idea that didn't work out. Just nothing.
The repurcussions of all this are likely to be a reallignment of Unionism in Northern Ireland, and a likely precedent for fielding a single Unionist candidate in each constituency to prevent the parties from splitting the unionist vote between themselves to the extent that the SDLP or Sinn Fein takes the seat.
[post modernist irony]Wait there's a *northern* ireland?[/post modernist irony]
and yea I'm fully aware that in actuallity Gordon Brown has the *legal* right to hold office but I would argue that its kinda hypocritical to hold that line of thinking when you are pushing for a fairer electoral system.
And yea the Lib Dem popular vote actually went UP 1% and they still lost seats.. Hooray democracy!
It's amazing how you can not be elected, then lose the next election, and still be Prime Minister.
Edit:
I'd also like to point out that the House of Lords are... a really, really good thing. People tend to think "unelected decision maker" and therefore "NO DEMOCRACY!!!" but quite apart from having no real power, their most important role is to request that parliament reconsider some dubious legislation. They have saved our asses countless times.
Whether or not they saved our ass is irrelevant.. the fact of the matter is that they are unelected and thus have no right to veto the legislation put forward by elected officials.
Sure they do, they're knighted. So as long as the British folk approve a monarchy, that's how long she'll be tapping some gents on the shoulder with her sword, making sure it's the upper class that keep the peasants under her foot. It's all just second hand bureaucracy.
Quote from: Calin Leafshade on Fri 07/05/2010 20:07:29
Whether or not they saved our ass is irrelevant.. the fact of the matter is that they are unelected and thus have no right to veto the legislation put forward by elected officials.
They are incredibly experienced and wise men. Their right to veto comes from that they know better about what is best for the country than most of parliament and certainly most of the country.
For instance, take Harold Wilson. Legalised homosexuality and abortion in the 60s, as well as passing other important legislation on censorship and immigration. The general public was furious and hated the thought of it, but Wilson knew it was good for them, and even just a few years later, people realised he had been right. Politicians like him no longer exist, they cannot, thanks to the media. The House of Lords provides the same influence today as Wilson did then, guiding the decision making of Parliament against the context of the whole of British history, and the aspirations and philosophical imperatives of our society.
Also I think it's a bit glib of Tuomas to infer that the Queen and the Lords secretly run the country like Jews doing 9/11, I mean, neither of them have any REAL power. The Queen has none at all, and the Lords really just have the power to send a Bill back to the Commons with a post-it note on it saying "You're idiots who can't see the big picture, try again."
To say they are 'wise men' is hugely biased and counter productive to democracy. Wise men according to whom?
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Fri 07/05/2010 21:43:35
They are incredibly experienced and wise men.
And they're not short of a bob or two either.
Do you also think the entire civil service ought to be elected? It's civil servants who actually make the decisions which affect you, not your MPs. An MP makes some catch all law but it's the civil service who decides if you get benefits, tax credits, and so on. And the people who work out the order in the NHS waiting lists, I suppose they ought to be elected as well? How about the principals of schools, refuse collectors and the Chief Constable, or the Chief Justice?
The House of Lords, as it exists today, is mostly a traditional matter like the monarchy, but has a role in which it can not veto legislation, but delay it pending further consideration from the Commons. They can recommend changes to proposed laws. It is the Commons who actually decide finally whether to change the draft documents or not. If we didn't have them, any time a cr-aaaaaaaa-zy law got passed, we'd all ask why we didn't have some kind of system to stop The Sun and The Mirror pressuring parliament into passing some ridiculous reactionary measure law. They're good at that job. Just because we didn't hold a popularity contest beforehand doesn't change that.
Quote from: bicilotti on Fri 07/05/2010 12:39:10
parties such as BNP an UKIP would get a boost and almost veto power inside a coalition?
I'm confused why you're using those two together. UKIP is
not an extremist party.
Ps. Watch this BBC video, summing up beautifully the BNP. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8663681.stm)
Saying "They're wise and stuff, so they don't need to be elected" is political bullshit... then we could just all form dictatorships ruled be these people. Which won't work, as every dictator in history pretended to have been.
I'm not saying we should be ruled by unelected officials. I'm saying that having an advisory body like the Lords be unelected shouldn't bother people as much as it does, because the very little they are allowed to do, they do it well.
I'm not defending the Lords as much as defending them against people who think they're a bad idea for very vague reasons. Like I said in a previous post, there are a plethora of unelected positions who have a much more relevant impact on your life, and people don't seem to care about that. I don't like witch hunts and efigy burnings.
Quote from: bicilotti on Fri 07/05/2010 12:39:10
I'm curious: I understand why you would like to shift towards a proportional representation, but are you aware that, along with lib-dems, parties such as BNP an UKIP would get a boost and almost veto power inside a coalition?
That's an inherent problem with any democracy: if enough people support ANY cause they can get a seat. Different systems just have different thresholds at different regionality levels. In some ways, the top-up system in Scotland (aka Alternative Vote) has the worst of both worlds in terms of letting fringe parties have a voice: they can get in locally OR regionally if there's enough bigots/nutters/commies in either.
Actually, the system that the Libdems want is STV I think, which means you state your first/second/third etc. preference. That means that BNP are probably LESS likely to get in as many would rather have lots of other parties than them. Not sure what it would mean for UKIP as they might be the 2nd choice for both BNP and Conservative voters, but they are unlikely to make it into the final rounds anyway.
This is little known, but it was actually in the Labour manifesto to have a referendum on the Alternative Vote system.
Well, I'm not going to get drawn into political debate, I'll just add my closing thought 2-cents.
It was quite hard to take the Lib Dems "rush" seriously. A lot of those opinion polls were done online, via the red button on TV and stuff. That's what younger people would be taking part in. But come the actual day of the vote and you realise some of the people doing those online polls didn't even have any intention of going to the booth to vote.
One Facebooker who joined or liked some Lib Dem group/fan page or whatever was AT the polling booth when I was there to help his grandparents, but he "couldn't be arsed" to vote. That just seems to sum up young Lib Dem followers quite well ;) Labour & Tory voters will go and vote. Also from the off I thought it was silly to think the Lib Dems had a chance. They put up a good fight but, have they ever come close? Never mind though. I've learnt more about the processes this time round than the last couple of times.
Also I don't understand either why people are speculating a Labour - Lib Dem government. I see no chance of that whatsoever, and to be honest if that is the case, I'll be the one revolting and protesting. Especially after Clegg showed such a dislike for Brown. Labour isn't such a bad party but that Scotsman has no great leadership qualities. And he's a Scotsman. For a country that wants so little to do with England, no idea why he's running our country ;)
Anyway all that opinion beside, it was fun to watch. I wonder if anyone else saw Cameron's acceptance speech and then noticed the ketamine addict throw a newspaper at him at the end? It was also the only constistuency that seemed to include the Monster Raving Looney's ;D
Does the US have a majority thing? Or do they just accept the most votes equals a winner? I wish we did in the UK, it would speed up this whole process, shut the media up quicker & prove to me just how many people we have that can't handle being beat. Majority? Hung parliment? Please :| 60 Tory consistuencies more than Labour and about 150 more than Lib Dem should just equal a Tory majority. But ohhh nooo.. Some system that predates neanderthal man still in place!
Quote from: Stupot on Sat 08/05/2010 09:58:06
Quote from: Mr Flibble on Fri 07/05/2010 21:43:35
They are incredibly experienced and wise men.
And they're not short of a bob or two either.
And they're not short of a boob or two either.
"Men"? The House of Lords has some Ladies!
Quote from: SSH on Sat 08/05/2010 14:09:13
Actually, the system that the Libdems want is STV I think, which means you state your first/second/third etc. preference. That means that BNP are probably LESS likely to get in as many would rather have lots of other parties than them. Not sure what it would mean for UKIP as they might be the 2nd choice for both BNP and Conservative voters, but they are unlikely to make it into the final rounds anyway.
Uhh, didn't know they were aiming for STV! That kind of renders my question unimportant.
I don't know why you guys are actually bothering with this so much. Hell, if Jesus came down and ruled the country things wouldn't get better. That goes for any political system of any country. Politics is like eating shit, you think you're voting for pouting, or chocolate instead, but you're only voting for the extra, the main dinner (aka shit) remains.
Quote from: Dualnames on Sun 09/05/2010 01:10:14
I don't know why you guys are actually bothering with this so much. Hell, if Jesus came down and ruled the country things wouldn't get better. That goes for any political system of any country. Politics is like eating shit, you think you're voting for pouting, or chocolate instead, but you're only voting for the extra, the main dinner (aka shit) remains.
....says the guy who lives in Greece... :=
LOL if Jesus came down Spanos I'd expect an AgS blog interview :P
Quote from: Mods on Sun 09/05/2010 01:16:59
LOL if Jesus came down Spanos I'd expect an AgS blog interview :P
On the funny side or serious?
Quote from: SSH on Sun 09/05/2010 01:15:14
Quote from: Dualnames on Sun 09/05/2010 01:10:14
I don't know why you guys are actually bothering with this so much. Hell, if Jesus came down and ruled the country things wouldn't get better. That goes for any political system of any country. Politics is like eating shit, you think you're voting for pouting, or chocolate instead, but you're only voting for the extra, the main dinner (aka shit) remains.
....says the guy who lives in Greece... :=
I meant about all the countries..England is no exception. But you're a Scottish fellow, aren't you?
Quote from: Dualnames on Sun 09/05/2010 01:34:25
Quote from: Mods on Sun 09/05/2010 01:16:59
LOL if Jesus came down Spanos I'd expect an AgS blog interview :P
On the funny side or serious?
Ha! Preferably funerious. But that's goddamn OT.
Did anyone notice how every single MP acceptance speech contained the phrase "Thank you for voting for the politics of hope, not the politics of fear." Who was actually representing fear? People from all three main parties said this in their speeches.
And Dualnames I think the reason you think it doesn't matter is probably because the UK is already a devolved, stable state with welfare. There's not really... much else to do. A lot of things don't work too well but the basic reason is that we can't afford to run them any better, so short of magicing money out of nowhere, there's not much a party can hope to do. It's a bit like when you're playing Sim City and you get to the point where the city doesn't really need you to interfere with it any more.
The only thing I notice about politics is that MPs refuse to ever put the 'o' in...
Links speak a thousand words. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8566722.stm)