So I have to get utterly bored with US politics all the time - I heard about those elections everywhere for months and months and months...
So...
Labour
Tory
Lib Dem
- UKIP, BNP, Green - Monster Raving Loony -
What do you all think?
Post Merge: April 13, 2010, 04:25:47 AM
There is some serious nostalgia going on in this election...(Which is odd considering they are all talking about change).
Yesterday Labour launched their manifesto
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flgos.org%2Ffiles%2FLabour.jpg&hash=f640592045eb986b8b75b10c0d10fb92b3587616)
Labour's manifesto looks like a communist picture or a cornflakes advert.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FAbout%2FGeneral%2F2010%2F4%2F12%2F1271071125920%2FCover-of-%253Cbr%2520%2F%253Ethe-Labour-Manif-007.jpg&hash=1c9bf9509a8c9ec09893948be5ca8d61d897b974)
There are already jokes that they hope the 'future fair' has candyfloss and dodgems.
For a party claiming to be 'in the future business' they are harking back a little bit - like a future as imagined in 1945.
A nuclear family - I must be a member of one of the very few nuclear families here - and what is with all them fields? The population of this country have been largely weighted to cities for over 150 years... similarly Gordon Brown infront of fields.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsimg.bbc.co.uk%2Fmedia%2Fimages%2F47633000%2Fjpg%2F_47633248_009103806-1.jpg&hash=2df13a04cb9537794915aa288041fc1a0472bcfa)
The manifesto launch was in a building shortly to be a brand new hospital (this not being yet a hospital is important, as it is against the rules to hold meetings in public service places). The message of course being, 'Look what we've done, we've made hospitals'. It was big, shiny and trying very hard to be optimistic.
It started with a video summing up the manifesto - it's quite cute - as someone said, 'I'm looking forward to the adult one'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCO-KwYpH0M&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCO-KwYpH0M&feature=player_embedded#)
- It does sum up stuff though.
Now I tend to vote Labour in stuff and I like the rhetoric on fairness, I like any talk on working together and community but there are some big alarm bells ringing out for me.
Gordon Brown pledged the 'largest middle class ever' - this seems a bit wrong to me, if we have the largest middle class ever then the surely the working class and the upper class are more separated then ever. There is huge social inequality in Britain and this doesn't seem a way to solve it but to increase it.
Similarly they want to train us all up to be able to work in skilled areas of science, creative and green technologies...apart from my fear of 'the creativity industry' as a way to permanently kill any creativity whatsoever. But - I have already experienced the labour wish to give as many people a university degree as possible, the result being I have a worthless degree (or two) and I am chasing any job I possibly can. - Funny it's being described as 'the new industrial revolution'.
Also, there is a lot of typical new New Labour type responses to problems - namely targets and boxes to tick and those who tick all the boxes taking over those who do not - very much a one size fits all. The New Labour seems to confuse fair treatment with identical treatment. This tactic is being applied to police (police authorities taking over failing ones) schools (good schools taking over weaker ones) &c...
Working in a school and looking into training to be a primary teacher, education interest me particularly. The whole better schools taking over less successful ones seems a bit dumb to me, I am in a school that is a lesser school that has been taken over by a better one - and it weakens the better school and produces resentment in the better. There is a promise to almost universal one on one tuition, and seeing as I am in that sort of business - would do me good.
Indeed, as a write about this, I am getting increasingly unsure about it all.
- However Labour has introduced a minimum wage, systemised many chaotic and unorganised things, done a lot of good stuff with the NHS - I reckon they have mostly done well and although I do not sync with them completely, it could be worse.
Also, there was a very nice idea about an international banking tax - if that could ever be set up and enforced - I think that'd be the way to go with getting some money of them bankers.
On a lighter note, the song they chose was 'Higher' by Jackie Wilson. Total old school.
Today it was the Conservatives.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.search.com%2Fthumb%2Fb%2Fb6%2FConservative_logo_2006.svg%2F250px-Conservative_logo_2006.svg.png&hash=eb1633c79c7e534f7b94571a680fde5d96e019d6)
So sitting in a large tent inside the shell of what used to be Battersea Power Station, they did lots of talking and presented their manifesto.
The tory speech, rhetoric and design seem to be harking back to the second world war.
Their manifesto is a hardback book, the first ever hardback manifesto, looking a little like an old wartime manual. (Interesting that Labour used new technology - having a digital manifesto given away on usb sticks when the Tories have got this).
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2010%2F4%2F12%2F1271104188693%2FConservative-manifesto-001.jpg&hash=a6579d71ccb593c899632f29818a348fae8b3b14)
The big idea is that it wants people to get involved in what is being called 'the big society'. Very odd, that the party who said 'there is no such thing as society' now wants people to join the 'big society'.
Now I'm not a tory, dislike most tories I have met, hate posh people - but I have to say, I like this rhetoric. I like talk of people taking responsibility and working together for the good of everyone, I like the talk of an open government with the people feeling involved in the decision making process - I like all of this.
I also like the almost wartime pictures and diagrams in the manifesto - I can't find any images low res enough - but there is a serious retro thing going on (interestingly all three parties went to saatchi and saatchi for there election materials). Even the diagrams (which are actually not very informative) are beautiful in an austere kind of way that reminds me of the cover of a 'British Sea Power' album.
Even the talk was WWII, 'We're in this together.' Obviously linking national debt crisis to the war - and very inspiring the talk of joining and and being part of the government is. There were repeated calls to 'do your bit' and the old JFK line was wheeled out.
However, as much as it is thrilling talk - the practical application of it sounds a bit bonkers - and just a little bit more of traditional toryism - let them get on with it and those with the money will do good.
I mean, the rich will be let off any hook as always - there are no talks of raising national minimum wage and it all seems a bit get on with it yourself. There is a policy to be able to start your own school. That seems total nuts - starting your own school - imagine all the people who would want a school to indoctrinate kids, we might actually have people believing in creationism (!). Having people 'involved in the day to day running' of our hospitals sounds like a great way for them to go to rack and ruin. As much as I don't like the Labour box ticking approach, surely any approach is better than 'sod it, run it your own way'.
Then there is a thing about letting local communities make more decisions on new building works and changes in their local areas - like a local referendum on what size and shape building to be built (was the example given). That sounds great, I'd love to feel that involved, but knowing the British people it would only mean one thing - nothing would ever get built - people don't like change and they would always vote against it - they would always vote for their own needs and not society's needs. That's the flaw with the 'big society'
Finally they said they would pay for stuff by 'savings made' - but never said what they were going to cut to get said savings.
So the talk is good, but I am unsure they are really saying what they sound like they're saying.
Finally, UKIP launched their manifesto today, bless.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maddywestrop.ukipstourbridge.org%2Fukip_images%2Fpound.gif&hash=3edce491d277a78a571da21e08d5631bcf3ac682)
This is the party of the grumpy old man in the post office queue - they don't like foreigners, they want to get out of europe, they hate immigration and everyone agrees with them except they don't say it because of political correctness gone mad...
...what they do have going for them is an actual interesting person (!) in there MEP Nigel Farage.
Oh - and the Green Party
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jeanlambertmep.org.uk%2Fnewsdocument%2FGP_logo1234567.jpg&hash=b41a2749d11489ee679ed9bc324466732a61cadf)
I know sod all about them but they do have a very good video manifesto themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHLfzPFsz5c&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHLfzPFsz5c&feature=player_embedded#)
Lib Dems tomorrow, looking forward to them.
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fknowvote.files.wordpress.com%2F2009%2F05%2Flib_dem_logo.jpg&hash=dfa8815d742f5362e6f0d17856ec5e6ffa729e13)
We are gearing up for Federal and State (Victoria) elections later this year.
So far we are still in pre-pre-election mode with the Liberals trying to get their policies together, and Labour (in Govt at both levels) trying to get out of the mess they have made in various areas.
So far we have had a Home Insulation program as part of the national economic stimulus package. This basically ended up with dodgy companies installing dangerous ceiling insulation which has caused at least 50 fires, and 4 deaths of workers electrocuted.
Peter Garrett (former Midnight Oil singer) had his Environment Ministerial portfolio cut back and the knives are still out.
This week it looks as though the national School building program has spent 66 billion for 30 billion worth of work, and the Deputy PM Julia Gillard is desperately trying to cover her arse.
Here in Victoria the Planning Minister has had to explain how he didn't know a cousin was involved in a developement which was to be fast tracked through the planning process.
I love watching people stuff things up worse than I ever could! :laugh:
Midnight Oil are quite a good band though
As Minister for the Environment he makes a good rock singer!
I'll be voting Lib Dem. I'm excited as it's my first time voting.
Personally I am a floating voter who has voted for all three parties at one time or another.
1974 - too young to vote. Probably would have voted conservative though.
1979 - Voted Conservative.
1983 - Voted Social Democrat
1987 - Voted Liberal Democrat
1992 - Voted Labour
1997 - Voted Liberal Democrat
2001 - Voted Liberal Democrat
2005 - Voted Liberal Democrat
2010 - Will vote Conservative.
Unfortunately on this occasion the Lib-dems have picked a rather arrogant lesbian in our constituency and having met her I didn't exactly warm to her. (obviously her sexuality is no issue for me but she just seemed to be one of those who had "issues" which isn't what I want in my MP.) Plus they have Mr nobody Clegg as their leader. Why they didn't choose Vince Cable is beyond me.
I really like David Cameron and that alone swings it for the Conservatives. I went to school with loads of people like him (like him I went to a rather exclusive private school) so I have at least the illusion that I understand where he is coming from and therefore I am more likely to spot when he is not being honest. Tony Blair wasn't too bad, but Gordon Brown has a faintly puritanical streak which I distrust.
There are only two parties whom I could NEVER vote for - the BNP (for obvious reasons - like I would prefer to live out my days outside of a concentration camp when someone takes a dislike to my trans status) and UKIP - UKIP is in my view really BNP Lite and therefore subject ot much of the same thinking. In fact of the two I'm probably fractionally more likely to vote BNP on the basis that at least you would know what you were getting, but in all honestly hell is more likely to freeze over than that I would vote for either of those two reactionary and dangerous extremists!
QuoteI heard about those elections everywhere for months and months and months...
Then stop being passive and watching the media. Learn about you candidates by visiting their headquarters and talk to real live people. Politics is not entertainment, Voting is every citizens responsibility. It is not designed to be fun.
nah, you've missed the point again. What I was saying was that I was bored of US politics because in web-land you can't ignore it - so I thought it time to chat about the politics of where I live.
We've just finished our election in South Australia. Labour was going for a third term, difficult to do here. The Premier, Mike Rann who was the most popular polly managed to get himself caught by his knickers in an affair with a Parliamentary staffer. The Liberals who are so full of factions that no two people can agree with each other managed to pull themselves together behind a new leader. They had been changing leaders every six months ::). The day before the election one clown in the Liberal party basically said publicly she would challenge for the leadership no matter what.
Liberals lost. Labor won. Labor have done stuff all for the previous three years and will probably do stuff all for the next three.
Since the election the liberals have changed their deputy three times ::)
Major election pledges? A knew AFL footy stadium in the centre of the city - I hate AFL footy. A new hospital in an area that has no parking or access.
Ahh the democratic process. Certainly better than the alternative though. Voting BTW is compulsory here. Is it in the UK?
Is the politicians rorting issue in the UK a factor? I read about it here, people using parliament money to buy duck ponds etc. Sounded great :laugh:
Cindy
Ahh democracy.
We don't have to vote, and many do not. The turn out for X-factor is greater than parliament. Our general culture is quite apathetic and grumbly anyway - and the politicians haven't helped.
We don't often have sex scandals and when we do it is usually kinky, often a bit of leather or at least some fun behind a hedge. It turned out John Major, the last tory PM was a bit of a goer but we only found out about all that ten years later.
As for the expenses thing, it is that, along with the poor economy, that is driving this election. There were some crazy things - one guy spending two and a half times my yearly salary of public money on little houses for ducks that float on the pond. Another on 'moat-cleaning' and another on porn sites.... Not made us all happy bunnies.
As for the Aussies - the tories were like that for 13 years but they have got themselves together now to take on Labour, I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Post Merge: April 15, 2010, 05:13:29 AM
Oh - and our new thing - the first TV debates ever in our elections. (Not that it makes any sense because we don't elect the leader anyway, we elect out local party representative and not all the parties are represented at the tv debate - but hey ho
Hey yes
We had TV debates as well between the 'leaders'of the parties, even though we vote for local members only. It has become very American (?) I think in the the 'leader' is the one of issue and not the local member. I have to admit I do not agree with the political persuasion of my local member but she has been very active and has helped me with issues.
We still have big debated over compulsory voting. I still think it is a good thing. You have to vote or rather you have to turn up to vote, you can spoil or just not vote if you wish; but you have to exercise your democratic wish by registering a vote. The anti-compulsory voting group are (of course) also politically motivated, it would benefit the Liberals by not having compulsory voting. BTW our Liberals are left wing of your Tories, about the same as your Labor party. The Labor party is right wing of your labor party about the same as the our Liberal party. Oh the choice.
Many, many years ago I lived in the UK (over 35 years ago) the local councils had great power. Is that still true? I came from Liverpool and the council were so left wing they made Stalin look conservative (a joke BTW people), I think Thatcher did stuff to prevent it happening but I have to admit I have not followed the facts. I should Google but first hand conversation is more interesting, I got the impression that Thatcher destroyed (?) the Tories, I don't know why. She seemed popular and hated at the same time. I never really followed through the history.
I'm suddenly and totally knocked. Here I am asking about history. I was expelled from History classes at high school for my fervent argument that the study of history is/was totally useless (I was 13, just came out as TG, rejected, angry and yea).
Sorry Pica.
Let's enjoy an interesting post.
Oh BTW have you received the automatic phone calls as yet?
Hi, I'm XXXXXXXXX, don't hang up. YOU are important to me, etc etc
Cindy
Some interesting things with these debates don't you think? Gordon Brown in proving to be quite a relaxed and decent speaker in this second one - don't agree with most of what he is saying, but he is saying it well.
Rather disappointed with David C. I am agreeing with quite a few things he is saying but they aren't coming over very well. He's usually a very effective and personable dabater but he seems seriously off form of late.
Nick Clegg is again doing a good job - shame his candidate in our consituency is such a twerp! I honestly can't vote for her. She seems like an ultra arrogant lesbian separatist - nothing wrong with being a lesbian - but being a lesbian who can't be bothered to deal with me or answer my correspondence simply because of my trans past is not really helpful or professional.
Don't agree with most of Gordon Brown - but he is at least putting his case over fairly well.
Last time it was Nick Clegg first David C. second and Gordon brown third. This time I think it's Gordon Brown who has the lead - not sure about the other two - they seem neck and neck.
There is a part of me tempted to vote lib dem, just on the off chance they got a whopping great big chunk of the seats, to see if a big change in parties really did make any difference.
Post Merge: April 22, 2010, 03:34:21 PM
Gordon Brown has been compared physically to a Boglin :)
I usually vote either Labour, Lib Dem or Green. If I had to vote for one of the three main parties, I would vote Lib Dem. The Greens, however, are closest to my views, which are quite far to the left.
Why don't you peoples vote for Arnold. He's beaten California down and he can do it to your island too. Then you'll have a German in charge and my great great uncle Wolfgang Kahler will have won his bet that a German would one day rule the UK.
Plus, Arnold's got a bad ticker so you could take him out pretty quick if it became necessary.
Well all the talk about coming over well, and getting points across - rather than what the points themselves actually are - well, that's American Politics at its best and I'm glad the island has finally caught Election Fever Yankee-Doodle Style.
You just have to make them longer. We had people running Sara Palin for President in 2012 before she even lost the VP in 2008 - that's on long endless campaign going on over here.
Love the guy in the wheat field - or whatever. Very folksy and outdoorsy. Do you're politicians pose with guns a lot? Our do. It's scary.
Happy St George's day peeps - business as usual.
Yeah, Gordon Brown and his golden brown wheat field - sure it was only chosen to evoke the Stranglers.
If our politicians posed with a gun they would usually take a huge dive in the polls, similarly if they mentioned any religious beliefs. (Or indeed if they espoused too great a degree of patriotism).
The (slightly pointless) tv debates have really altered the dynamic of this election - the usual rounds of mothers meetings, village/town hall debates and leafletting has taken a serious back seat - as has some of the talk on policies. (My house hasn't received a single leaflet, but then this area is probably too stuck up to have riff raff like politicians in it.) However, there is still a lot of policy talk, and much of it was talked about in yesterdays debate - there are much fewer soundbites and promises in a UK election, those things just don't go down very well with the cynical voter. (Jeremy Paxman suggested that a national slogan should be, 'yeah, right.)
The big game changer is that the tv thing has given the Lib Dems (not in power since the first part of the twentieth century) a huge boost and they are coming top of the polls - the debate has enlarged national discussion from just two parties to all three and the likelihood of our voting system being altered over the next 5 years is pretty high, due to the Lib Dems requiring a PR system of voting as part of entering a coalition with either Lab or Con in the event of a hung parliament or a small majority leadership.
However, I also expect the polls to be very inaccurate - the people may tell a pollster they are going to vote Lib Dem but I can see most people bottling out of it when it comes to making the cross.
I totally agree with that last sentancePica. Lib Dems have gone up so much in stature in these debates but i just dont think it will be enough THIS time round. 4 years in the future i reckon theyll be a force to be reckoned with, especially if they prove themselves well in a hung parlament.
As for the debates themselves, Gordon Brown seemed quite solid throughout but was a bit too quick to attack the other 2 on so many occasions. it seemed more like a personal thing rather than directly at their policies. didnt like the way he was grinning at some of the things they were saying either. He just shouldnt smile! Cameron seemed to deliver on his (rehearsed) points but didnt bring as much substance as i expected. As for Clegg, well people are paying attention now and anything he does is seen as a victory in some form.
Labour sounds vague.
The Conservatives obviously intend to save money by not running schools and hospitals any more. Privatization talk is what it sounds like and you know what that means.
When privatization of essentials takes place (public transport, hospitals, banks, schools, etc) the 1% of people who have most of the money already become richer, while everyone else just gets... well.. profanity is involved there.
Is like the USA's healthcare system.
If you're insured, you can get help. Only, your insurance doesn't cover this or that unless you ask for it first (like that thing with needing to have your ambulance "pre approved".. unless you intend to pay for it yourself.. sh*t like that). If you're not insured, well... sucks to be you then eh?
At least, that's what I'm seeing there.
AND THAT STUFF'S DANGEROUS!
The green party sounds like it's promising lots, but without looking at the details of "how" they intend to get things done, I can't really say more.
I know nothing of the lib-dem and thus have no opinion of 'em...
All I can say for certain is...
I personally, as an Icelander, have reason to not be too fond of Brown, and I can't help but to think of a Tshirt I've seen around town with the caption "Brown is the colour of poo."
And I would rather set fire to myself than to vote for a party that appears to be dead set on increasing privatization as much as possible..
So... on what limited info I have, I'd probably vote for the green ones, if I had a vote that is.
How are the SNP and the Welsh Nationalists looking? or do they only have any effect in the regional elections?
Im not sure about those, Im in england so it doesnt get much mention. Maybe theyre somewhat independant but im clueless tbh.
About not liking brown.... I dont think anyone likes him but some people will vote labour anyway. Im not one of them - im still torn between the other 2 'big parties' since minorities have no influence in my region.
SNP and Plaid Cymru only stand in their countries - if there is a very tight hung parliament they may end up having a great amount of power.
Quote from: Rebis on April 22, 2010, 11:04:31 PM
Why don't you peoples vote for Arnold. He's beaten California down and he can do it to your island too. Then you'll have a German in charge and my great great uncle Wolfgang Kahler will have won his bet that a German would one day rule the UK.
well we,ve just given the railways and transport to the germans so the rest won't be far behind
With the number of Aussies and Kiwis over there, they don't stand a chance, it'd be Tobruk or Villiers Bretonneaux all over again.
Ummm. Seems to me the English already have a German on the throne, specifically one descended from the German House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Seems that slithered by the Aussies and the Kiwis when they were playing cricket, or drinking, or something.
I thought Arnold was Austrian. Am I wrong?
He was now he iz from Kal-i-fornia. Anything you have a governor who can't properly pronounce the name of the state they are governing, you're pretty much in deep doo-doo.
I can't argue with that Tekla.
Quote from: LordKAT on April 24, 2010, 04:34:30 AM
I thought Arnold was Austrian. Am I wrong?
when you are German, or a descendant of, as I am, the whole world is German.
Quote from: Rebis on April 24, 2010, 09:47:22 PM
when you are German, or a descendant of, as I am, the whole world is German.
Pure German here, doesn't cut it.
I should have realised that American's don't get our ironic/laconic humour. ::)
Quote from: LordKAT on April 24, 2010, 09:57:56 PM
Pure German here, doesn't cut it.
You shall be annexed.
That's kind of Borg-like. You will be assimilated.
What does everyone think of the Lib Dem's view on LGBT rights - http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/mini/libdem_2010_lgbt.pdf (http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/mini/libdem_2010_lgbt.pdf?)
i'm impressed they recognise gender identity issues, usually its eclipsed by the other 3 letters in GLBT. not sure how to interpret their meaning though. its like they want trans people accepted but discourage medical intervention?
Labour continues to display complete ignorance of the complexities of the spectrum of gender identity.
During the passage of the Equality Bill, it showed relentless and ill-informed determination to keep as
one of the protected characteristics 'gender reassignment' rather than 'gender identity'.
Throughout this process, Liberal Democrats consistently pushed for a broader defi nition of what
it means to be transgender, based on how someone considers themselves rather than an expectation
that they are seeking medical help. We will therefore change equality law to encompass this broader
defi nition.
I think it's opening the idea of transgender to people like myself - being transgender, rather than seeking reassignment.
I have just watched Gordon Brown's " OMG, the Mic is on!!!" moment on the TV News tonight.
Will this be the last nail in the coffin for him?
With regard to GLBTI issues, I would have thought that the Tories would have had these "well in hand" for a long time! :laugh:
- The guys in the last election debate are talking about a prospective person, a poor - ->-bleeped-<-ed over person.... namely, a teaching assistant on £10,000 a year - that is exactly my situation - apparently I am eligible on tax credits - they never told me about that.
Quote from: Pica Pica on April 29, 2010, 02:58:45 PM
- The guys in the last election debate are talking about a prospective person, a poor - ->-bleeped-<-ed over person.... namely, a teaching assistant on £10,000 a year - that is exactly my situation - apparently I am eligible on tax credits - they never told me about that.
I'm watching it on the BBC News site and commenting on Facebook via the Sky News site.
I've just got bbcc iplayer - I was very worried that nobody had a decent answer to help this poor teaching assistant - cos I owe my landlady a months wages.
So far it looks like Nick Clegg wins on points again - the only real points he seems to have got a bit stuck on are immigration and the euro.
This could make avery interesting poll - I was going to vote concervative for the first time in 30 years because I quite like David Cameron, and I'm not too struck on the liberal candidate in our area but so far on these dabates I have to say that I'm not that impressed.
Trouble is we have a great candidate for Mebyon Kernow (Cornish Nationalists) in our area and I'm now SERIOUSLY tempted to switch from the rather lack lustre conservative woman to him - he also has a fine beard! ;) which is always a vote winner for a chap with me! ;D
Nick Clegg is all presentation and absolutely no real substance. He can promise the Earth as he would require about sixty percent in the polls to get a commons majority. Also, the liberals have some most left wing policies of all three of the parties.
I also wish that he would stop calling the Conservatives and Labour 'old parties'. The basis of the Liberal Democratics is the the Whig Party which was formed in 1838, seventy years before the labour party!
I also think the three debates have turned the election from a battle of 600 and odd constituencies to a Presidential race. We don't have a president in the UK, we have a cabinet government.
Far too much of a political Britain's Got Talent.
The Liberal candidate in my neck of the woods is a bearded sandal wearing hippy and comes nowhere near the image Nick Clegg is trying to present his party as.
The only thing the Liberal Democrats are out to get is PR so that they are always the power brokers and kingmakers. This would be a disaster for Britain and would probably result in the complete financial meltdown of the UK. Mind you whoever gets into power will be faced with a financial tsunami. Just look at the comments made by the Chair of the Bank of England and the institute of Fiscal studies.
When the argue about halfing the deficit, the are only talking about halfing annual government debt. No one has addressed the total debt of 1.8 trillion that Labour has spent over the last decade.
Quote from: Pippa on April 29, 2010, 03:58:54 PM
The Liberal candidate in my neck of the woods is a bearded sandal wearing hippy and comes nowhere near the image Nick Clegg is trying to present his party as.
He sounds just like my type - have you got his phone number? and is he single - if so I'll be round... ;D :P
Nick Clegg is all presentation and absolutely no real substance.
Boy is Nick running in the wrong country, I could at least get him governor of California like that.
Dunno, if you read the manifestoes, the lib dem one comes on as very competent seeming, with a number of practical ideas and a whole bunch of nutty ones - like the other manifestoes really.
funny thing is that no matter what happens nick clegg is gonna end up being the guy who holds the cards cos the way the polls always seem to be going of late is a hung parlament. his inevitable choice to back one of the other parties is when the real result is revealed.
For the debates hes been the winner overall but he didnt have much to lose either. camerons seemed on and off over the 3 and gorden brown simply seems too petty to me, prefering to attack the others on the same thing over and over.
Today on the overseas news on the radio there was a report that a couple of Labour MP's had described Gordon Brown as the worst PM in Britain's history. Did this happen? And will it have any effect, or get any reaction from him?
It's a pity you don't have the Preferential voting system in the UK.
The Lib-Dems would have done a deal with one of the other parties up-front and in public to give them their second preference votes if they didn't win a 3 way contested seat outright. It saves a lot of confusion.
No risk of a minority government, the extremists get votes but never ( well, hardly ever) get in, and the result is known almost as quickly as first-past-the-post voting. Also a hell of a lot quicker than any proportional system.
I understand some States in the US use our system. I can't understand why more countries don't. Then again, we have compulsory voting too, which means you can't be prevented or pressured not to vote. I can imagine a lot of Black people in the US, in years past, would have loved to have been required to vote!
Knowing about Gordon Brown I would say very possibly yes, it probably did happen.
Will it affect the outcome - no probably not. We are pretty used to the idea.
The real problem we have in our country is that we don't have a preference system of voting. That's one of the good things that labour was pledged to provide if they got into power at the next election. But sadly we will probably never get it because the majority of brits are too politically naive and tribal to cope with such an idea.
Oddly enough, if you talk to the man in the street then most of them are quite happy with a system when someone can get elected by having say just 30% of the total vote simply because the remaining 80% of the vote was split evenly between the remaining 4 candidates none of whom polled higher.
To me that is a disgrace because if you look at our voting figures it almost certainly ALWAYS produces a government that somewhere between 51% and 60% of the country absolutely did not want and did not vote for.
Yes, it did happen. What gets me is that about 30 % of people want a parliament where no single party has a majority. For those in the states, the UK has three main political parties and lots of smaller ones like the Scottish Nationalists.
This willo mean that at the height of Britain's debt problems, polititians will be doing back room deals as to who runs the country. It is even possible that Labour will come third in the election and still provide the prime minister and most of the cabinet ministers.
It's like Turkeys voting for Christmas. The financial institutions will run a mile and Britain won't be allowed to borrow a penny let alone trhe billions of pounds needed to keep things running as the deficit is slowly reduced.
Might be a good time to emigrate!
That happend!! Hot on the heals of another attempt a couple of months ago, when several prominant Labour MPs tried to force a leadership contest. (Akin to trying to change the bus driver when the bus is driving at full speed down a freeway!).
The knives have been out for Brown for some time and those holding them have little to lose.
There are essentially two wings in the Labour Party at the moment.
The Blairite wing. This group accepts the realities of the free market. But seeks to modify it with what they decide is social justice. It worked surprisingly well, despite the rantings of the Torys, for a number of years. Sadly, for them, Blair blotted his copy book somewhat by lying to Parliment and taking Britain into two illegal wars which have resulted in millions of innocent deaths, the destruction of two ancient societies and the consequences for British foreign policy for the next 50 years.
(This puts me in mind of a satirical play I saw in the 60s, where a group wanted to put a former Gestapo officer up for election. The comment was made, Imagine a heavy German accent, 'There remians the problem of 3 million Jews').
On the other side is what might be described as the minority justice wing.
This group believes that the priority is to champion oppressed minorities. To do this they must first identify a minority, make it aware that it is oppressed, then rattle it enough to cause a division between it and the rest of society.
We recently had a group attempting to rant about the special problems of black voters. But the best example of this happened in the 70s when, while Britain was asking for money from the IMF and there were cuts being made everywhere, special interest groups could set themselves up and ask for government grants. One of these was, (I think I've got the name right), Black Disabled Lesbians in Hackney. I kid you not.
Quote from: Pippa on May 05, 2010, 02:29:59 AM
Yes, it did happen. What gets me is that about 30 % of people want a parliament where no single party has a majority. For those in the states, the UK has three main political parties and lots of smaller ones like the Scottish Nationalists.
This willo mean that at the height of Britain's debt problems, polititians will be doing back room deals as to who runs the country. It is even possible that Labour will come third in the election and still provide the prime minister and most of the cabinet ministers.
It's like Turkeys voting for Christmas. The financial institutions will run a mile and Britain won't be allowed to borrow a penny let alone trhe billions of pounds needed to keep things running as the deficit is slowly reduced.
Might be a good time to emigrate!
LOL - you and I are sooooo on opposite sides of that one Pippa. I'm praying for an end to the cosy little one winner takes all undemocratic system.
I think pretty well 100.0% of the supposed consequences that you foresee is basically a scare story put about by powerful people in the media, and a few rich souls who have done very well out of having a single party (at any time) in government that they can control by the back door.
Of course they don't want a coalition, it would far more difficult and expensive to control and get their dirty little deals done and we might actaully get some decent government for a change instead of the lunacy that we have had over almost ALL of the post war period! Madness perpetrated in the name of strong but frankly AWFUL government from both sides which has all but brought the country to it's knees on several ocassions.
A coalition would of course mean that things would have to be debated to the point of consensus before action is taken. Yes it would be slower government but no it would not be weaker, because the laws that it passed would be ones that the majority supported... unlike now where a lot of legislation gets passed which simply does NOT command majority support in the country.
So we'll have to agree to disagree on this one I fear.
I'm a floating and tactical voter. I support hung parilaments! :)
I so agree with Justmeinoz. I was amazed coming to Aus from the UK that voting was compulsory but I quickly found that I agreed with it. It's not compulsory to vote, but you have to put in a vote, it can be spoiled or blank for example. But in a Democracy I think voting has to be compulsory to protect the ideals of the people. That said we get more turkeys than eagles.
Has there been much backlash from the rorts affair? Or was it so widespread everyone is covered in s**t?
Do all parties agree on getting rid of the House of Lords?
Cindy
I wonder if we can get to vote for the Monster Raving Loony party tomorrow ;D
Monster Raving Loony Party Manifesto 2010 features the following:
(1) Force all members of Parliament to stand on one leg whenever they talk
(2) Paint every third house purple
(3) Convert pubs/bars into milk bars
I don't know who to vote for, myself, I don;t watch these political campaigns because they never do what they say theyll do so whats the point in being impressed by anyones seech or poll victory? Whats the point in this dramatisation of politics when nothing really changes?
In history, it has always been the campaigns of the people who have ever gotten anything to change, for example, the black people, the gay/trans people and the women have all gotten themselves their own rights and have made any beneficial changes to our society.. Where were the party leaders pushing for legality of homosexuality back in the sixties parliamentary election campaigns?
Where I live it's so blue, it's sometimes hard to believe there is an election on... ::)
No banners, no candidates knocking on doors, no interest, just a bit of junk mail through the letter box. ???
Coalition sounds like a great result for democracy to me ! :eusa_dance:
...Oh and I checked out the 4 Major UK TV channels coverage for tomorrow night at 10pm.. ::)
BBC1 ~ Election 2010.... ITV1 ~ Election 2010.....Channel 4 ~ Channel 4's Alternative Election ...BBC2 ~ Movie "Kinky Boots"
OK...so at least C4 is trying....but BBC2 wins by a "leg".... ;D
Chrissty
I want to see the election, but I want to see kinky boots - which one is better...there is only one way to find out
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi174.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fw113%2Fjackb2302%2FHarryHill_fight-1.jpg&hash=31ab73c39447c62548d76cbc4d181267cde22f6c)
Monstor Ravinh Loony have a number of excellent proposals.
One which I particularly like is the introduction of the 99p coin, to save on change.
Quote from: spacial on May 05, 2010, 06:38:49 PMOne which I particularly like is the introduction of the 99p coin, to save on change.
That is the most ingenius proposal ive ever heard! <3 Is it possible to vote them tomorrow?
Quote from: Little Dragon on May 05, 2010, 07:13:18 PM
That is the most ingenius proposal ive ever heard! <3 Is it possible to vote them tomorrow?
Depends where you live.
Post Merge: May 05, 2010, 09:04:12 PM
list of candidates
John Cartwright (Croydon Central)
Colin Dale (Buckingham)
Alan Powell (Ludlow)
Alan 'Howling Laud' Hope (Witney)
Crucial Chris (Barking)
Tony Davies (Blackpool North)
George Ridgeon (Tewkesbury)
Martin Hogbin (Surrey East)
Mark Beech (Cardiff Central)
Napoleon Dynamite (Old Bexley & Sidcup)
R.U. Seerius (Derbyshire Mid)
Ken Hanks (Cheltenham)
Monkey Drummer (Kingston & Surbiton)
Top Cat Owen (Wokingham)
Flying Brick (Derbuyshire Dales)
Chinners (Esher & Walton)
Mike Young (Sittingbourne & Sheppey)
Norman Davidson (Faversham & Mid Kent)
Toby Jug (Huntingdon)
Matt Fensome (Milton Keynes North)
Lord Offa (Brecon & Radnor)
Roger Monksummers (Dorset North)
Knigel Knapp (Hackney North & Stoke Newington)
Sam Thing (Amber Valley)
Baron Von Thunderclap (Mid Sussex)
Eddie 'Elvis' Vee (York)
Mark 'Zammo' Adshead (Sheffield Hallam against Nick Clegg)
Post Merge: May 05, 2010, 10:35:43 PM
If you live in Wales you could vote for the New Millenium Bean Party - run by Captain Beany from the Planet Beanus.
If you lived in Westminster you could vote for a university colleague of mine who is dressing up as a pirate and promising to teach kids swordplay 'because they already know how to wield a knife'.
Post Merge: May 05, 2010, 11:38:27 PM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.captainbeany.com%2Fuploads%2Fbeanybanner.jpg&hash=9154ea9134f9680f5a75409b0fc55b95dcb777b1)
Post Merge: May 06, 2010, 12:40:10 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARjHBukWON8&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARjHBukWON8&feature=player_embedded#)
i want that hat!
Arrrrrrr!
Quote from: CindyJames on May 05, 2010, 03:30:57 AM
I so agree with Justmeinoz. I was amazed coming to Aus from the UK that voting was compulsory but I quickly found that I agreed with it. It's not compulsory to vote, but you have to put in a vote, it can be spoiled or blank for example. But in a Democracy I think voting has to be compulsory to protect the ideals of the people. That said we get more turkeys than eagles.
I agree with it too, and coming to Aus from America I thought it was a great idea. At least it avoids situations where low voter turnout means the religious wing nutters who always show up at the polls anyway actually have a chance at winning anything. And I rather like Kevin Rudd, all things considered. But I have to admit Tony Abbot has a nice bod, the way he runs around all the time in his speedo and all lol
I always thought Kevin Rudd looked like the character 'Butters' from South Park! :laugh:
It wasn't till i put me cross that I realised there was a BNP candidate in my area.
Post Merge: May 06, 2010, 01:57:42 PM
Hear of the BNP guy who had a fight with the asian boys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfRX4BEF6o&feature=related# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfRX4BEF6o&feature=related#)
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 06, 2010, 12:59:55 PM
It wasn't till i put me cross that I realised there was a BNP candidate in my area.
That street looks strangely familiar - I would guess it's in a part of west London that I know very well indeed.
It looks as if we have a well hung parliament this morning. The only question being whether clegg will do a deal with Brown or Cameron... either way things are going to be different and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we get another election within 12 months!
Quote from: rejennyrated on May 07, 2010, 02:57:54 AM
That street looks strangely familiar - I would guess it's in a part of west London that I know very well indeed.
It looks as if we have a well hung parliament this morning. The only question being whether clegg will do a deal with Brown or Cameron... either way things are going to be different and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we get another election within 12 months!
Mmm a well hung parliament, is that what you get from a general erection?
Cindy
Quote from: CindyJames on May 07, 2010, 03:35:40 AM
Mmm a well hung parliament, is that what you get from a general erection?
Cindy
Girl, You always make me laugh.
Quote from: CindyJames on May 07, 2010, 03:35:40 AM
Mmm a well hung parliament, is that what you get from a general erection?
Cindy
The way I see it a well hung parliament can either well and truly screw you or it can put a smile on your face depending on your (political) orientation. ;D
Any idea what the outcome will be? Presumably a coalition? The UK hasn't had one of them for ??? ages?
Cindy
Quote from the BBC's political editor "With these figures, the ONLY possible stable political outcome would be an alliance between the conservatives and the Lib Dems. No other combination can gain an overall majority"
Trouble is such an alliance is HIGHLY unlikely to work. So my guess would be an interim governement with a very limited agenda leading to a new election within 12 months.
I got the impression that the Lib Dems did worse than they expected? Is the traditional voting patterns coming through?
Cindy
Although a lot of people agree with the lib dems;when it comes to the actual vote they don't believe the lib dems will get enough of a vote to change anything so they go back to voting tory or lab. And then we end up with the mess we have now. Conservatives got over 2 million votes more than labour but labour still get to try and make the first government
Hi Al
But is it law in the UK that the sitting side has first choice? It will be interesting to me if the monarchy has to decide who is the ruling government. I think it was the last Charles who (don't remember my UK history ::)) who precipitated a civil war.
::) the latest Charles appears to be as intelligent as the last.
Sounds fun
Cindy
Quote from: CindyJames on May 07, 2010, 05:14:52 AM
Hi Al
But is it law in the UK that the sitting side has first choice? It will be interesting to me if the monarchy has to decide who is the ruling government. I think it was the last Charles who (don't remember my UK history ::)) who precipitated a civil war.
::) the latest Charles appears to be as intelligent as the last.
Sounds fun
Cindy
Hey don't you go dissing my mate Charles Duke of Cornwall.
Actually in all seriousness he is a much maligned and underestimated man - who like Edward 7th suffers from being considerably overshadowed by others around him.
Someone was on the radio here this morning trying to make out he knew what was going on and said that it is a convention that the incumbent gets first go to form a coalition, unless they want to try and rule as a minority Govt.
Sounds like it will keep the TV and press experts busy for a while.
Quote from: justmeinoz on April 24, 2010, 10:17:23 PM
I should have realised that American's don't get our ironic/laconic humour. ::)
I was just thinking that if this had been a thread about American politics it would have been much different :icon_punch:
Quote from: CindyJames on May 07, 2010, 05:14:52 AM
Hi Al
But is it law in the UK that the sitting side has first choice? It will be interesting to me if the monarchy has to decide who is the ruling government. I think it was the last Charles who (don't remember my UK history ::)) who precipitated a civil war.
::) the latest Charles appears to be as intelligent as the last.
Sounds fun
Cindy
The UK government is built on a number of ancient traditions, which have evolved over the years.
The government is, technically run by the monarch. The monarch appoints ministers to advise her and act on her behalf.
Because of a settlement which started with King John in the 12th century and confirmed later, before the monarch can raise any taxes, she must get the conscent of those that pay them. Parliment.
The ministers, acting on behalf of the monarch, need to deal with Parliment to get its agreement.
Parliment is an elected house made up of those that pay taxes, so, when a new Parliment is electd, the monarch will appoint ministers who can command most support in the new Parliment.
By a settlement in the 18th century, when the monarch was a German who spoke little English and had little knowledge of English traditions, the ministers, after being appointed, generally run the affairs of state. They consult the monarch, telling her what they intend. But the monarch, generally, doesn't interfere. In exchange, the ministers ensure that the monarch and her family are provided for financially and are given sufficient protection.
But the ministers are crown appointees. By custom, the Prime Minister is a member of Parliment, but there is no specific constitutional reason for him to be. There have been Prime Ministers who were members of the House of Lords.
More-over, other ministers tend to be members of Parliment, but often there will be several who are members of the house of Lords. By convention, ministers will always be members of one or other house, but technically, there is no reason, other than that non-members will have difficulity in accessing the house to do their work.
When a general election is called, all MPs stop being MPs and become ordinary citizens. But the ministers are crown appointees. Those that are MPs will stop being MPs, but still be ministers.
All the government ministers will remain in office until they resign. If the Prime Minister and therefore the other ministers cannot command support of the majority of the house of commons, they will resign. When that happens, the monarch will ask whoever can command the support of the majority of the commons to become Prime Minister and for their government.
Until 1963, Tory Prime ministers were chosen by the monarch. The last of these was Douglas Home. Labour Prime Ministers are always whoever has been elected by the party to be the leader of the party.
Quote from: CindyJames on May 07, 2010, 05:14:52 AM
Hi Al
But is it law in the UK that the sitting side has first choice? It will be interesting to me if the monarchy has to decide who is the ruling government. I think it was the last Charles who (don't remember my UK history ::)) who precipitated a civil war.
::) the latest Charles appears to be as intelligent as the last.
Sounds fun
Cindy
It was the Charles before last (the first) who started the civil war - a lot of our current political systems that make use of a restricted monarchy have there roots in the relationships stem from the relationship with parliament and his son Charles (the second) who was invited back on limited terms by General Monck in 1660 after nine or so years of Cromwell and Proctectorship.
As for prince Charles, he's stood me up twice now.
"Clegg" sounds like a medical condition!! "I'm sorry Mr Brown but you have developed a bad dose of Clegg!"
By the time the dust settles in the UK we will be heading for a Federal election here, as well as Victoria having a State election.
The dollars are already being thrown in all directions, although the Federal Labour Govt keep having things blow up in their faces. Kevin Rudd as PM appears to be doing a Gordon Brown impersonation and is becoming as popular as a blow-fly around a BBQ.
People are noticing he is highly visible when there is an announcement of a program or project, but always trots out a Minister when there is bad news to be delivered.
Quote from: justmeinoz on May 08, 2010, 02:34:11 AM
"Clegg" sounds like a medical condition!! "I'm sorry Mr Brown but you have developed a bad dose of Clegg!"
By the time the dust settles in the UK we will be heading for a Federal election here, as well as Victoria having a State election.
The dollars are already being thrown in all directions, although the Federal Labour Govt keep having things blow up in their faces. Kevin Rudd as PM appears to be doing a Gordon Brown impersonation and is becoming as popular as a blow-fly around a BBQ.
People are noticing he is highly visible when there is an announcement of a program or project, but always trots out a Minister when there is bad news to be delivered.
Absolute the truth girl.
But Tony Abbot in speedos is still something I need to get over :laugh:
Then kevin in speedos would be a brown paper bag job :laugh:
Cindy
Maybe Tony is discreetly going for the Gay vote!
Quote from: justmeinoz on May 08, 2010, 03:09:44 AM
Maybe Tony is discreetly going for the Gay vote!
Oh yea Tony and Gay :laugh: I think he is BTW, why flash the budgies otherwise?
Wasn't he saying all women should be virgins before they marry ::) And his daughters didn't complain?
Cindy
I will have to see if I can find a picture for all the non-aussies on here! :o
Hi Hun
Definitively . There was the one in the Australian which was terrible.
We may change Australian politics at Susan's :laugh:
Cindy
Will the last person out of Britain please shut the door! God we are in a mess, if the Tories and the Lib Dems cannot agree, we will be left with an unelected Prime Minister, leading a rainbow coalition of minor parties, trying to get some of the most unpopular spending cuts for forty years through the commons. I can see Britain going the same wasy as Greece.
Personally I find it amusing how many people seem to think that being "governed" is a good thing.
Wherever possible I want to be left to decide for myself what is legal decent honest and truthful and not have some personable halfwit, that all the sheep have chosen to elect in return for some silly bribe like a benefit increase or a spending cut doing it for me. My starting point is that 9 times out of 10 I reckon I could make a lot better choices than they do, and even when I couldn't they would be my own mistakes and not someone elses.
In my ideal world governments would be very much more resticted in what they could interfere in than is usually the case at present. The idea of a "strong" government is the very thing which truly fills me with horror and makes me start checking where I've left my passport. It's often (but admittedly not always) advocated by people who are horribly repressed themselves, like for example Ann Widicombe, and who therefore think they have a right to foist their own shortcomings and lack of emotional freedom on everyone around them. I have great symapthy, but absolutely no respect for people like that I fear.
These are interesting times indeed.
Cameron, aka, Hague and a bunch of financiers with their ambition to take Britain out of Europe and run it as a banking haven.
Brown +++ Harperson, determined to find yet more minorities to isolate, protect and further divide Britain.
Clegg, with his one issue party, so scared of any other policies they sacked the only leader that made any difference.
Oh to be in England, now that election horse tradeing is here.
As I said in an earlier post, with our Preferential voting system, all the deals are done up-front before the election, so that you know what the Party you vote for will do in the evennt there is no clear winner.
I regard myself as a true Conservative, which means that people should be left to do their own thing as long as it doesn't infringe on any one else's life.
Along with that people should behave with good manners and common decency, morals should be left up to the individual, and people should be expected to be held responsible for their actions.
In one of his books historian Simon Schama pointed out the historical difference between the Scottish and English attitude to the law. The English approach was to say what couldn't be done and left large areas for the Common law to make a ruling, whereas the Scottish opinion was that the law should specifically set out everything that was allowed.
I prefer the traditional English approach. Pity that Britain's( and the rest of the world's ) Govt. disagrees.
Quote from: CindyJames on May 08, 2010, 02:51:52 AMBut Tony Abbot in speedos is still something I need to get over :laugh:
aw c'mon he's not that bad... but that little swim cap has got to go lol
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fresources2.news.com.au%2Fimages%2F2009%2F12%2F03%2F1225806%2F772686-tony-abbott.jpg&hash=b86466dc0e2bb05b03e2a7a1cbc33efb7a91128b)
Quote from: Pippa on May 08, 2010, 04:49:51 AM
Will the last person out of Britain please shut the door! God we are in a mess, if the Tories and the Lib Dems cannot agree, we will be left with an unelected Prime Minister, leading a rainbow coalition of minor parties, trying to get some of the most unpopular spending cuts for forty years through the commons. I can see Britain going the same wasy as Greece.
Technically, Britain has always had an unelected PM. There is an example in Britain of a very successful all party coalition led by a PM who hadn't even been the leader of his party - Winston Churchill. There are also examples of Lords being PM, and no-one even votes for lords.
Maybe Cindy meant to type "get a leg over"!! >:-)
justmeinoz
Quote from: justmeinoz on May 08, 2010, 06:26:38 AM
I regard myself as a true Conservative, which means that people should be left to do their own thing as long as it doesn't infringe on any one else's life.
Along with that people should behave with good manners and common decency, morals should be left up to the individual, and people should be expected to be held responsible for their actions.
I'm with you absolutly on that one.
The problem with the Torys is they are too bound up in the bribary of voters and scared to cross the powerful in society.
Thatcher is a good case in point.
Advocate of the free market and so on. Then when it came to deregulation of airports, a measuer desperately needed at the time, she refused to deregulate the airports in Scotland. The only airport permitted to have regular internation flights remained Prestwick.
Reason? Her old chum, Sir George Younger had his constituiency there and was afraid of losing his seat.
I had a lot of time for Maggie, before she went mad as Jeremy Clarkson put it. By the way has anyone suggested dragooning him into number 10? That would liven things up!
Quote from: FairyGirl on May 08, 2010, 07:01:06 AM
aw c'mon he's not that bad... but that little swim cap has got to go lol
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fresources2.news.com.au%2Fimages%2F2009%2F12%2F03%2F1225806%2F772686-tony-abbott.jpg&hash=b86466dc0e2bb05b03e2a7a1cbc33efb7a91128b)
looks like pinnoccio
Post Merge: May 08, 2010, 11:47:20 AM
This was one of the more impressive looking photos of the election
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.metro.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2010%2F05%2F06%2Farticle-1273182235836-09744538000005DC-838630_636x373.jpg&hash=73a23b8c1fe6da1acca351277f3e0739004a14a6)
Far from not having an ironic/laconic humour - which BTW is spelled humor, what? don't you speak English? So here is real irony, an American telling someone from across the pond how to speak English, but the real irony of course is that when most people in the world speak English, what they speak is American, not British.
How's do you like that ironic stuff now?
Here's more irony. Though it wasn't as big (but how could it ever be?) nor as totally crass and vulgar on a gutter crack-ho level (we're also going to be hard to beat in that department), or as mind-blowingly stupid (you'll get there, don't worry), I would like to congratulate you on holding your first American Style Election™(patent pending)!
You just spent more time, and more money then you ever have before on an election, and got a whole lot less out of it then you ever had before. More time spend campaigning and running (and covering - that coverage deal is a big part of this - people campaigning and running) and all most no time spend on discussing any real substantial and serious issues that your nation is facing.
And we, well some of us anyway, the true Sons of Jefferson and Paine, are getting part two of the real American revolutionary dream accomplished. You see in 1776 we took this country from you, the world's most powerful empire - and if you look at it, pretty much without a fight - but not only did the American revolutionary leaders want this country, they really, really, hated the British Government. They did not hate (as kids are taught today sadly) that it was that particular bunch of people (Townsend, George3, et.all), they hated the entire British system pretty much to the roots. It wasn't just Lord North they were hating on. They disdained the very notion of Lord Anybody. That's what was so damn revolutionary about it in the first place. It was their sincere hope that the fallout from the 1776 colonial uprising (and their model of what would replace the Ancien Régime), would destroy the British government, king, Parliament and the whole bailiwick. France would have such a revolution, but England never succumbed. Until now.
I could not help but to watch the coverage of this election, and feel that same sense of American Pride, almost like it was the Olympics and we were getting to chant USA! at the former Soviet Union. (And their was a huge amount of coverage this time around, I bet this election got more coverage in the American media then ALL the British elections in up to this point combined. Really.) Viva la Jefferson, Baby. Worst mistake that England ever made was pissing that guy off.
And there is more than a wee bit of irony in that entire equation.
Quote from: tekla on May 08, 2010, 12:43:31 PM
which BTW is spelled humor
You find it ironic that an American would correct an British persons spelling/grammar, yet I'm sensing a fair bit of irony in the fact that your correction is in fact incorrect...for this side of the pond. Or were you being deliberately ironic in making the correction in full realisation of the spelling variations of certain words on either side of the pond? I think all this irony is making my brain hurt.
On a political note, I'm starting my own country and cede from UK juridstriction.
Quote from: Rock_chick on May 08, 2010, 01:31:38 PM
On a political note, I'm starting my own country and cede from UK juridstriction.
Me too. oh we already did that, Ok I'll start my own nation.
Quote from: justmeinoz on May 08, 2010, 06:26:38 AM
The English approach was to say what couldn't be done and left large areas for the Common law to make a ruling, whereas the Scottish opinion was that the law should specifically set out everything that was allowed.
I prefer the traditional English approach. Pity that Britain's( and the rest of the world's ) Govt. disagrees.
Typical Sharma stuff.
Looking at the point the other way, Scottish law sets out rights, while English law sets out prohibitions.
Sharma is an interesting TV historian. But his populist tendencies show through repeatedly.
History should be about annalysis. Sharma continues with the old habit of looking to justify established opinion.
Quote from: tekla on May 08, 2010, 12:43:31 PM
They did not hate (as kids are taught today sadly) that it was that particular bunch of people (Townsend, George3, et.all), they hated the entire British system pretty much to the roots. It wasn't just Lord North they were hating on. They disdained the very notion of Lord Anybody.
While we must all appreciate the teaching of the US version in US schools, the realities are somewhat different.
During the 18th century, England went through a number of reforms that were unprecidented in history.
The power of the monarchy was devolved to Parliment.
The economy was released from central control, money making ventures and innovations were largely allowed to develop as they will.
But this brought enormous social problems. The countryside economy collapsed as people moved into cities looking for better opportunities. What most found was grinding poverty which led to social breakdown.
The American revolutionary leaders, realising the enormous contribution their efforts were making to the wealth of England, sought self government under the slogan, No Taxation without Representation.
Had the UK Parliment given the American colonists representation, it is highly unlikely they would have backed down. What they really wanted was to control what they knew was a potentially enormous empire of wealth.
The government of the newly independant nation was based upon the government of pre-Cromwell England.
An autonomous head of state. Two parliments, one representating territory, the other people. All the main agencies, the military, national law enforcement, the economy, would be answerable to the head of state.
They then threw democracy into the mix. Making each level of government, from the head of state, down to those to administer the law, elected.
The claim of absense of an aristocricy is, of course, a nonsense. The American aristocricy doesn't tend to carry silly titles, but it exists and exercises its authority regularly.
autonomous head of state? not quite
Quote from: LordKAT on May 08, 2010, 07:54:52 PM
autonomous head of state? not quite
Your head of state is not answerable to anyone except at predetermined elections.
Such consultations he must make to your parliments are no more than were customary in pre-Cromwell England.
It was Charles I's attempt to ignore and circumvent these that lost him his head.
He holds and uses a power of veto over laws passed by your parliments.
He has the power to present proposed laws to your parliments.
He directly leads and appoints the executive.
Numerous armed agencies with the power of detention are directly answerable to him or his appointees.
Post Merge: May 08, 2010, 08:23:56 PM
I'm not trying to criticise the US system of government. I'm silply attempting to point out that every government has its positives and its flaws. But almost anythign can be portrayed in ways to demonstrate one point of another.
Sharma, (an English TV historian, known for his populism), is a good example of this. The American accademic institutions are also in the habit of doing the same.
Nothing can be understood without annalysis. We need to examine issues from many different perspectives. We also need to be aware of emotivness. Your references to ancient aristocratic titles is a case in point.
It is one thing to rid government of these ancient titles, but another to leave in place the very institutions those titles represented.
His veto can be over rode. He can be fired.
Actually Tekla I thought you would have picked up that I am Australian not English. (Bit like calling a Mississipian a Yankee)
Remember "That's not a knife, THIS is a knife!"? ;) We spell Labour with 'our' as well. :-*
Under our Westminster system the PM can be dumped at any time by his own Party, and a replacement appointed to lead the govt to the next election. It has happened here at both the Fedreral and State levels more than once.
Was that one of Gordon Brown's problems as regards acceptance by the electorate?
Hi Tekla,
I find a lot of humour in the discussion. I get so many assignments written in well presented Word documents using USA spelling that I just red line them.
Sorry Kat I think you may still be recovering from the party. I hope it had a lot of humoursome occasions .
:-*
Cindy
I think those of you who, like Tekla, are so confidently reporting the death of the British system may well be premature in your pronouncements.
I for one got precisely the result I wanted and indeed tactically voted for. Right up to the last minute I was swiching my allegiance about trying hard to create this exact result.
Why? Because in a world of dimishing resources the age of constant expansion and empire is over. Today the politcial reality is that we either have to learn to work together to solve some hideous issues like population control, without which the species is doomed within 100 years, or we go under.
Under those circumstances politicians (and indeed voters) who are so partisan and polarised that they can not learn to compromise and cooperate have outlived their usefulness. We can no longer AFFORD your bickering.
I hope that events may yet surprise people.
True, Jenny. And as Sir Humphrey Appleby pointed out, the Civil Service let the Politicians think they run things, while making sure they don't get near the steering wheel too often! :laugh:
Strangely, Jenny, that also happened in my constituiency. Until 1992, this was a pretty much Tory stronghold. Since then it has been held by the Liberals. Labour barely keep their deposit.
The general opinion is that people personally like our Liberal MP and anything is better than having the Torys back.
As I was trying to point out to kat, no system is perfect, or near it. Any system is only going to be as good as those that use it.
The Westminster system has been implimented in a number of other states, including Israel!!
But take, for example, two African states, Zimbabwe and Mauritius. Both with, essentially, identical governmental systems.
Mauritius is a tiny island, 5000 or so miles away from Africa. It has few resources. Yet its government is generally very stable. It's economy is remarkably successful and there are well educated Mauritians living in most parts of the world.
Zimbabwe has enormous resources of almost every kind. It once produced more food than any other state. It is potentially the wealthiest. Yet because one man has refused to accept the limitations of his office, the place is in ruins.
The strength of any system, including the US, is the willingness of those in power to accept their limitations.
The problem for Zimbabwe is that the president refuses to accept that his role is a figurehead as the president of Mauritius does.
Mugabie can command enormous support from huge numbers of young men who are only too willing to form themselves into lawless gangs. The results are patient.
The president of Mauritius could quite easily summon a similar mob. (By convention, the president is a Muslim, muslims make up about 15% of the population. The Prime Minister is a Hindu, though occasionally a Christian. Hindus make up over 50% of the population while Christians make up about 30%)
Having that amount of power and using it are two entirely different things.
The instabilities in the US become apparent when we look at the numerous periods where the bulk of the populace has become encouraged to become unnecessarily fearful of invasion.
Here in Europe, and especially in the British Isles, such generalised mob rule is rare. The last time it happened here was the 17th century. Our bigget problem is our apathy. We fail to see psychopaths until the damage has already been done. This is certainly the case with Tony Blair.
During the Second World War, Churchill ran a national government of all the parties. You have to remember that between 1939 and 1945, everyone had one big focus, Britain surviving as an independant nation and winning World War II. All parties agreed to suspend Politics until the war was over. Although things are bad, I do not think that the political parties are willing to suspend politics now. The situation we are closer to now is the coalition government of Ramsay Macdonald during the depression. His government was a disaster and lasted 18 months.
I hope the conservatives and the Lib Dems can come to agreement but the markewts are not going to like a minority government or a weak coalition. As for the Labour Rainbow coalition of Uncle Tom Cobly and all, it is a complete non starter. As someone said yeasterday, Gordon Brown cannot get his own party to agree with him, let alone a dozen disperate parties. The nationalists and the Northern Ireland parties have made it quite clear that the price of their acceptance is increases in budgets for their parts of the UK. We would have pork barrel politics with no pork in the barrel and English voters would be subsidising Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to an even greater degree than they do now. No cuts in Scotland and Wales, even bigger cuts in England.
I also think that a lot of voters who have not experienced a coalition (the last was in 1974) or who do not know political history will be changing their minds about coalitions. I spent half an hour speaking to a girl in my office who had no idea how coalition government worked. She expected a government on Friday as usual and was dismayed that it may be a couple of weeks before anything is actually decided.
If we had full proportional representation in the UK we will have this every election. Most coalition governments take up to 40 days to secure agreement and often the minority parties will hold the major partner to ransom. I heard a German commentator speaking last night about Germany. After the second World War the Allies place an electoral system on Germany that ensured that no one group could take over power in the manner the NAZI party had. THis has lead to continual grand coalitions and the Chancellor Angela Merkel, although popular abroad, is despised by her own party supporters in Germany.
It is extremely rare for coalitions to provide good government or to survive for full terms. PR in Britain will mean instability and continual weak government. I think this result may be the end of PR not its beginning.
Post Merge: May 09, 2010, 06:26:02 AM
Also re Zimbabwe, Mugabe is a despot who abuses the political system to meet his own requirements. Every election in Zimbabwe for the last 20 years has been rigged. Like a lot of African politics, which tribe you belong to gives your position in society. Mugabe and his thugs belong to one tribe, most of the opposition come from another. During British rule, Zimbabwe was one of the most productive parts of the empire. It has vast mineral wealth (now being sold cheap to China) and is generally extremely fertile. Properly run the country would be up their with New Zealand and Australia, rich stable and prosperous. Instead it is a mess propped up by South Africa's ANC President. All Zimbabwe's electricity comes from South Africa. If the ANC pulled the plug, Mugabe wouldn't last a week.
Thanks Pippa, I had forgotten about Ulster when I mentioned the SNP and PC earlier. There is no way Paisley's supporters would favour the LD or Labour over the Tories from what I have read here in Oz. It sounds like there will be a lot of bargaining to be done yet.
We have a PR system in Senate and State Upper House elections here and it always takes a while to work out who has won a fair number of the seats. The lower House election at both levels are done on the Preferential system, except in Tasmania which has to go through a form of PR too.
The advantage with Preferences is, as I said earlier, is that the Parties can say who they would like their second preference vote to go to, but you can direct your votes however you like. All the horse trading is done before hand, and is quite open.
Also the way things work, people like the BNP never get enough overall support to get in, as all the main parties will suggest putting them in last place.
Basically you list your vote from 1 down to 6, or whatever with you favourite as 1 and your least favourite as 6. If no-one gets a majority of 1's , then they start distributing the last candidate's 2nd choices, and so on until there is a winner. It's a lot easier to do than describe!
Just read an interesting quip.
The people have spoken, but they don't know what we've said.
And it looks as though we have a new government:
A full coalition between Lib Dems and Conservatives looks like the final outcome.
David Cameron is on his way to the palace to be sworn in right now.
If we get the coalition I could not be happier. Both conservative and Lib Dems have some positives to contribute to this, both have some crazy bits. The compromise which emerges should be pretty well exactly what I hoped for. :D :D :D :D
And there we go, David Cameron sworn in...very strange.
Quote from: Helena on May 08, 2010, 01:31:38 PM
On a political note, I'm starting my own country and cede from UK juridstriction.
I've come close to writing the U.N. to demand that I be released from being an American citizen so that I can be a citizen of the universe. I can't conceive being a part of tribal nationalism. I have no issue with following local laws and paying local taxes but I can't stand the notion that I have to belong to a tribe based on geography.
My idea is that individuals across the earth should have the right to be human over being some nationality.
Perhaps we can refer to ourselves as 'Terrans'.
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 11, 2010, 03:55:11 PM
And there we go, David Cameron sworn in...very strange.
Not strange at all. He will lock step with globalization very easily.
I went to parliament today on a school trip with da kids. Most fun.
Quote from: Pica Pica on May 20, 2010, 02:44:46 PM
I went to parliament today on a school trip with da kids. Most fun.
..yes.. a rare opportunity to see more than 6 people (and less than 5 sleeping) in the House of Commons.... ;D
Some years ago, my wife and I were invited to lunch in Parliment. To be honest, I've eaten better. But after, we were given the full tour of both houses and the Hall, which was nice. But the place was completely empty.
Though it certainly does have a lot of atmosphere.
We have had a State by-election in NSW, caused by the sitting Labour member getting caught out in an expenses type scandal and lying about it.
It looks like the Liberals have won the seat for the first time in nearly 40 years with a swing of about 25%. Given Penrith is in the Labour heartland of Western Sydney there is already talk of ditching Kevin Rudd as PM, and putting in Julia Gillard. Not quite as unpopular as Gordon Brown, but heading that way.
Seeing that the ALP hierarchy are saying they are backing him 100%, and there is no challenge in sight, I think he's gone! It will be interesting to see whether we have a Federal election this year after all. (It can be any time after November.)
Bit like a football coach getting the "full support of the club board". They are right behind him so they can push him under a truck. >:-)
Quote from: justmeinoz on June 19, 2010, 07:40:59 AM
We have had a State by-election in NSW, caused by the sitting Labour member getting caught out in an expenses type scandal and lying about it.
It looks like the Liberals have won the seat for the first time in nearly 40 years with a swing of about 25%. Given Penrith is in the Labour heartland of Western Sydney there is already talk of ditching Kevin Rudd as PM, and putting in Julia Gillard. Not quite as unpopular as Gordon Brown, but heading that way.
Seeing that the ALP hierarchy are saying they are backing him 100%, and there is no challenge in sight, I think he's gone! It will be interesting to see whether we have a Federal election this year after all. (It can be any time after November.)
Bit like a football coach getting the "full support of the club board". They are right behind him so they can push him under a truck. >:-)
Yes I think it sounds days rather than weeks. Rather typical knife in the back Aussie politics. But Tony Abbott as an alternative :o :o
Cindy
I need to get some sleep... I thought the thread was called "Erection Time" :laugh: >:-) :laugh:
Quote from: Virginia Marie on June 20, 2010, 02:17:06 AM
I need to get some sleep... I thought the thread was called "Erection Time" :laugh: >:-) :laugh:
Typical :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: I wonder what you think an election poll is? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
:-*
Cindy
Britain is "on the road to ruin" unless action is taken in the Budget on Tuesday to cut the deficit, Chancellor George Osborne has told the BBC.
We are each, as are we all, on the road to ruin. Join me. I have established a church where the believers shall toil mightily in order to ensure that the founders do okay despite the state of the world.
It shall merely cost you your dignity. Is that too much to ask?
Good Idea Rebis. Sounds like the bloke who put a post on FaceBook-"Join my Cult"- no details at all, but he ended up with hundreds seriously wanting to join!! ???
Well it looks like I was wrong about Kevvy, gone this morning!
Despite what he said last night on TV,about there being no challenge and easily beating one if there was, he didn't contest in the Party Room, and we now have our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
It will be an interesting Election ( or Erection, if you are Japanese!!)
Quote from: justmeinoz on June 23, 2010, 07:38:23 PM
Good Idea Rebis. Sounds like the bloke who put a post on FaceBook-"Join my Cult"- no details at all, but he ended up with hundreds seriously wanting to join!! ???
Well it looks like I was wrong about Kevvy, gone this morning!
Despite what he said last night on TV,about there being no challenge and easily beating one if there was, he didn't contest in the Party Room, and we now have our first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.
It will be an interesting Election ( or Erection, if you are Japanese!!)
I think we both made the right call :laugh: Kevin07 gone in 11 :laugh:
Cindy
I like that!! :D
So, next question is,when do we get to decide between the 'Ranga' and the 'Mad Monk'?