
So I naturally got naked in the office and played with it.
Sadly there is no redtube, as it has no Flash.
Clearly NSFW - may contain elements of ME!ME!ME!ME!ME!
Also it is made of pine.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:30,
archived)
Sadly there is no redtube, as it has no Flash.
Clearly NSFW - may contain elements of ME!ME!ME!ME!ME!
Also it is made of pine.

Specifically pulled up for that 'Scandinavian' feel.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:33,
archived)

Well done you!
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:35,
archived)

I have got a piece of pine with stickers, front and back.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:35,
archived)

Mind, so did the iphone for a good while.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:38,
archived)

that if you aren't hyped up about the ipad, you aren't thinking about it hard enough.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:54,
archived)

"Getting bored of our products? THINK HARDER ABOUT THEM, MORE OFTEN."
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:59,
archived)

ipod touches have more functionality than ipads! ipod touches can actually run two applications at once! like listening to music while surfing for porn! can't do that on the ipad.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 20:13,
archived)

![Challenge Entry: General election: Other / Spoilt ballot [challenge entry]](/images/board_posticon_c.gif)
here's the b3ta election so far using the BBC's seat calculator

edit/ by the way, SOCKSY!
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:43,
archived)

edit/ by the way, SOCKSY!

if it was coloured according everyone who came second.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:53,
archived)

depending on whether you're using light or paint.
MAN THIS IS SO DEEP
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:56,
archived)
MAN THIS IS SO DEEP

makes a pale pinkish purple.
With paint it makes a mucky brown.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:59,
archived)
With paint it makes a mucky brown.

teal and orange make black with paint
SO DEEP
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:01,
archived)
SO DEEP

red and green make yellow with light.
cyan and orange make pale green.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:04,
archived)
cyan and orange make pale green.

it would be very close to being just the exact opposite of this
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:56,
archived)

in a literal what %age of the votes did they get system (which would never happen) they'd have got over twice as many MPs as they actually did in the last election
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:20,
archived)

The talk of any system other than what was used in the last election is meaningless.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:29,
archived)

It's difficult to find out the answer to your question without trawling through the results of all 650 constituencies, and I'm not that bored, but I refer the honorable lady to the answer I gave some moments ago - I think you'd be disappointed to find out how few that would be.
The relatively even geographical spread of Lib Dem support compared with the other two main parties means that PR is the only way they'd be likely to do much better than last time out
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:35,
archived)
The relatively even geographical spread of Lib Dem support compared with the other two main parties means that PR is the only way they'd be likely to do much better than last time out

I just thought it might be funny to offer an arbitrary number.
The number is: seventeen.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:38,
archived)
The number is: seventeen.

Giving 50% of the vote to one main party and 25% to the other two.
When Labour have 50% of the vote, they win 467 seats.
When Conservative have 50% of the vote, they win 450 seats.
When Lib Dem have 50% of the vote, they win 532 seats.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:39,
archived)
When Labour have 50% of the vote, they win 467 seats.
When Conservative have 50% of the vote, they win 450 seats.
When Lib Dem have 50% of the vote, they win 532 seats.

Not trying to shit on anyone's parade, maybe this will encourage a few people.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:44,
archived)

But it would be some good propaganda for them. It means a vote for Lib Dem isn't necessarily as wasted as a lot of people seem to think. Actually their biggest enemies seem to be the "others".
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:47,
archived)

I have to say though - there is no such thing as "good propaganda". It seems good when you agree with the message, but it is never good.
How do you fight two heavily financed propaganda machines? That's a tough one. Fighting it with propaganda just perpetuates the shit.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:51,
archived)
How do you fight two heavily financed propaganda machines? That's a tough one. Fighting it with propaganda just perpetuates the shit.

It's "good" if it gets people to vote for you.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:52,
archived)

I find it to be a bit more descriptive - transparent messages to gain power.
If you're going to put all political messages under the propaganda umbrella (even if, let's say for theory's sake, the vast majority of people voted with the exact message you were shouting), then let's differentiate propaganda from transparisma.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:58,
archived)
If you're going to put all political messages under the propaganda umbrella (even if, let's say for theory's sake, the vast majority of people voted with the exact message you were shouting), then let's differentiate propaganda from transparisma.

All political leaflets published by political parties are produced with the aim of convincing people to vote for them. They don't need to be lies as such, they only need to be persuasive in some way. It may simply rely on the audience's general tendency not to be very good at interpreting facts or understanding statistics.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:03,
archived)

I hope that doesn't get in the way of the concept
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:07,
archived)

they're all of the form "Vote X, because if you vote Y, Z will win."
I'd rather see something more along the lines of "Don't be put off voting X by people who say they can't win."
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:10,
archived)
I'd rather see something more along the lines of "Don't be put off voting X by people who say they can't win."

That being said, Lib Dems in England have an uphill battle. There is no shame in being the underdog.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:14,
archived)

I've been telling Lib Dem organisers to stop banging on about two horse races and make some proper principled arguments. The whole point of being a Liberal is not being a reactionary arsecandle.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:17,
archived)

It's insane. The latest Labour one tells me that the Conservative candidate is hoping I'll vote Lib Dem. I was kind of under the impression that he'd want me to vote Conservative. But I guess I may as well now, anyway. What are they trying to do here? Make me strategically vote Conservative? I'm sure as hell not voting Labour, because then the Tories will win!
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:24,
archived)

Baffling logic thought up by constituency organiser drones. Surely people vote Lib Dem more because they hate both the Tories and Labour, or because they like our policies. Bizarre tactical voting is an illusion.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:31,
archived)

unless almost everyone who voted Lib Dem last time switches parties. The idea that the Tory candidate is rubbing his hands at the thought of people switching from Labour to Lib Dem is completely absurd.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:39,
archived)

We've gone all heady and political. I think your estimates of percentage of vote/realistic seat share might be the wrong way round. But don't tell anyone, or they might do one of them 'tactical' votes.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:58,
archived)

Currently it takes:
96,481 votes to elect a single Lib-Dem MP,
44,306 votes to elect a single Tory MP,
26,860 votes to elect a single Labour MP.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:04,
archived)
96,481 votes to elect a single Lib-Dem MP,
44,306 votes to elect a single Tory MP,
26,860 votes to elect a single Labour MP.

The LDs will need 40% of the vote to win compared to Labour's 30% because Labour's support is concentrated in certain areas, however, the difference between 20% and 50% for the LDs is huge because they're spread out all over (really this just exposes how crude the BBCs toy is).
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:46,
archived)

But disturbingly inaccurate. Then again, all polls are.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:00,
archived)

I think British people have some weird dichotomy between "power thirsty bastards" and "our lords and ladies".
Don't like being called British? COMPLAIN TO YOUR LOCAL MP.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:41,
archived)
Don't like being called British? COMPLAIN TO YOUR LOCAL MP.

Oh they do like to be beside the seaside
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:02,
archived)

( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:08,
archived)

For some reason everyone seems to spunk over PR and I've never liked the idea. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one.
(Unless you refer to the Lib Dems. In which case... errr, I've only ever voted Lib Dem. :( I don't *like* them but I can't bring myself to vote Labour and am extremely unlikely to ever vote Tory.)
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:47,
archived)
(Unless you refer to the Lib Dems. In which case... errr, I've only ever voted Lib Dem. :( I don't *like* them but I can't bring myself to vote Labour and am extremely unlikely to ever vote Tory.)

and my decision to vote that way has more than a hint of strategy to it.
PR would turn the entire principle of democracy in this country upside-down.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:50,
archived)
PR would turn the entire principle of democracy in this country upside-down.

I liked the Lib Dems better when they were pledging to raise taxes to cover their manifesto - it was refreshingly honest. Then unfortunately they started stabbing their leaders in the back until they got one who looks like a clone of David Cameron but is even more boring :( I like Charles Kennedy, I'd vote for him.
Disclaimer: I did actually vote for Menzies Campbell. If you live in North-East Fife you're more or less required to by law.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:59,
archived)
Disclaimer: I did actually vote for Menzies Campbell. If you live in North-East Fife you're more or less required to by law.

50% top rate for those earning 150,000 or more.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:06,
archived)

(Though I'd add that it's easier to promise tax rises when you know you're unlikely to get voted in and have to try and force it through. Still, I like it.)
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 18:01,
archived)

The party just hasn't made the case for it properly yet. You'd think we'd have had long enough to do so. The Electoral Reform Society has a good little book on it though.
I may be a sad act.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 16:55,
archived)
I may be a sad act.

of minority group representation, particularly for rural voters.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:48,
archived)

not to represent his party in parliament and in his constituency. They may act like that already, but the problem would not be solved by embodying it in the constitution.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 17:55,
archived)

of multiple parties of almost every viewpoint. You go to the representative you choose. It's no harder to stand as an independent. I think you've succumbed to a few PR myths here.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 20:35,
archived)

you've ruined my eyes.
can you use two 'digits' at the same time?
and also i hope you disinfected that seat after that picture.
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:43,
archived)
can you use two 'digits' at the same time?
and also i hope you disinfected that seat after that picture.

I'd better dig out an old Cherie Blair pic to finish off over
( ,
Fri 9 Apr 2010, 15:53,
archived)