Are you a QOTWer? Do you want to start a thread that isn't a direct answer to the current QOTW? Then this place, gentle poster, is your friend.
(, Sun 1 Apr 2001, 1:00)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread
If there's an Ideological vacuum, its best to fill it, I'd say.
What have I got to lose?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 20:27, Reply)
Come to think of it, no, the Tory's will probably get a landslide next time round.
When Halloween or Christmas comes around, some of us change our names a bit, I think even Boycey did last year.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 20:30, Reply)
No way in a fucking three man boy on boy, precum as lipgloss, Jeremy Clarkson dungbrain, Michael Portillo's hilarious closet homosexuality, decade will the Tories get a landslide, in spite of their latest attempt at gerrymandering.
Why the fuck do you think they legislated for fixed five year parliaments?
You utter nobtit.
FreeFair, not you Bartles.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 20:39, Reply)
Pointless and disputable for several reasons
1)Why attack Jeremy Clarkson's intellect? He has never endorsed any political party AFAIK?
2) Who cares what sexuality Laws, Mandelson or Portillo are? It makes no difference.
3) Since when has making an independent commission to draw up population tightened boundaries been Gerrymandering?
The current electoral system has long been gerrymandered towards Labour by about 8% or so, this latest redrawing just makes it harder for a repeat of the 2005 result to happen again in which a 3% lead becomes 26% of seats. On the lead the Tories had last year Labour would have gotten about 360 seats, not 306.
Did I mention the Tories also lose seats out of this?
4) OK, fixed term parliaments was probably to stop the LibDems leaving the coalition, but it applies to Labour and Conservatives and stops either party's PM from calling an election while polling is good. It is hardly party political.
5) I have no preconceptions about the result of the 2015 election, remember in 1981 the Tories were polling 3rd with the Alliance on 49%.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 20:59, Reply)
There was no general election in 1981.
Rightyo, in order:
1) It was a Richard Geefe quote. I am a big fan of Richard Geefe.
2) I am definitely not homophobic. I was putting together funny words and phrases for comedy reasons. Just for the fucking lulz, if you will.
3) It is gerrymandering, whichever way you look at it. The old vague rule of thumb of 70,000 people to a constituency may be on the way out, but there are solid arguments in favour of retaining geographically based ones.
4) Fixed term parliaments are ostensibly to stop 'tactical' elections being called, but are inevitably about maximising access to the gravy train. If the Tories end up as popular as the Lib Dems, and when they inevitably shit the economy up even more (does Gideon realise that the Chancellor is meant to act on the advice of the Treasury, rather than the opposite?) do you think they will do the honorobbo thing and fall on their swords for the good of the UK? Will they fuck. It's to maximise the salaries for an inevitably unpopular Government.
5) and yeah, the 1981 General Election result was a fucking whopper. That great that Thatcher had a war to boost her popularity a couple of years down the line.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:10, Reply)
In reply to five, there were many other factors than defense (although that was crucial) that contributed to her 2 further Landslides.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:14, Reply)
If the Tories really wanted any sort of "fair" system, they would have stood behind decent electoral reform, but they didn't. Instead they refused to have an open referendum on different types of electoral reform and they out and out lied about the only option they let people vote on.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:14, Reply)
I do support PR for all levels of government as it happens, I take a strongly radical view on our constitution , as opposed to the party I support. As in, there need to be a official one.
If you Labour fair elections, why don't you give us PR next time you're in? Add in a Written constitution and full Federalism and do ma favour
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:17, Reply)
Just because Labour also didn't want a fairer system (though fuck knows why, it can only have benefited them) doesn't make this gerrymandering anything less than gerrymandering.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:18, Reply)
Of course the two biggest parties don't want to remove FPTP. Gravy train shizzle. It only benefits fringe parties (including the Lib Dems) and their supporters. If you want to see the BNP and the Communist Party with elected, legislative powers, then feel free to bring in pure PR.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:21, Reply)
I don't like the fact that some people think that the BNP hold valid views. But the way to deal with those people is not to say "your views are invalid and you cannot be represented" because that simply means it's also perfectly logical to say to all Lib Dem voters that their views aren't valid either.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:26, Reply)
But there's a massive part of me (cocklols) that says that repugnant views should be excluded from the main decision making system. The liberal, intelligent part of me says that the best way to deal with these people is to engage with them publicly and expose them as idiots.
Hence me engaging with ToryBoy.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:29, Reply)
Theres a huge difference between engaging with a conservative/Christian Democrat/Libertarian/Free Marketeer , and an Ultranationalist?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:30, Reply)
And religion shouldn't be a part of politics in the UK.
There is no place for it in a secular, civilised democracy.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:31, Reply)
Christian Democracy is the European sense, as in Germany's largest party and a non denominational organisation, not the fundamentalist sense.
And legally the British State is not secular yet, although I'd like it to be.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:33, Reply)
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:34, Reply)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic_Union_(Germany)
Lets see you take a look at this link and try to paint the largest political party in Europe as some crazy minority outfit.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:36, Reply)
The point is that religion has no place in state-level decision making, just as it has no place in education. That way lies Syria, Iran, Eire and the USA.
Fucking fruitcakes.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:40, Reply)
They've ruled Germany for 42 years, If they wanted to make it into a Religious state they'd have well succeeded by now.
Anyway wasn't there a saying about the Labour party?
"They're more Methodist than Marx"?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:45, Reply)
Especially as you claim to be mixed race.
Remember Tebbitt's cricket question? Racist cunts, and you support them. So what does that make you? A cuntfan, that's what?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:57, Reply)
And anyway, the Cricket Question wasn't ever seriously considered as an actual migration clause, though as a way of measuring national identity it ain't to shabby.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:01, Reply)
Any right wing party tends toward Xenophobia.
And of course I know that it wasn't a migration clause, you bell. It was just Tebbitt showing himself up as a cunt in public.
One can be fiercely proud/ aware of one's status as an outsider/other but still take an active part in the affairs of their adopted country.
I'd advise you to read The Satanic Verses, but it would go way over your head.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:06, Reply)
And would be better in every way?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:08, Reply)
You decide.
This is fucking tedious.
Can you no go out and get some bum action or something instead of discussing lolitics on here with people twice your age?
When I was your age I was skating, smoking weed, listening to hip hop and punk rock, fingering girls, watching Taxi Driver, reading and playing videogames.
Before that, I was into politics. Bit like you, but left wing instead of right. Go out and get some bum or something, y'hear me?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:19, Reply)
Poor boy, he'll never be a proper Tory.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:02, Reply)
but all the others will be laughing at him and looking down on him behind his back.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:05, Reply)
Either that, or 'trade' on his minority status and go for the bummer vote.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:07, Reply)
Everyone knows the only way the western world will achieve any kind of security is if it embraces Christian supremacy and purifies the non-believers.
You people put up a good show against the Muslims on Sunday though. Good work there.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:41, Reply)
SRSLY BBZ?
I Wonder What He Thinks About Proporshunal Representatives?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:35, Reply)
it's not hip hop so I'm sure you've never heard of him.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:38, Reply)
Listening to this the now www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_LV9HN_c5s
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:42, Reply)
Which will probably spell administration.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:42, Reply)
this is another reason you should come to Montys bash. You get to say that you were at a party that I didn't go to.
And you could come to the internet hardnuts lunch.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:43, Reply)
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:26, Reply)
Having a list based MP removes accountability to the electorate, a need to engage with local issues and separates Legislature level representation from grass roots level activism, arguably weakening the democratic model.
amirite?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:19, Reply)
Or at least MMP/AMS
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:20, Reply)
Surely you must realise that for all its faults, FPTP delivers accountable representation. Which is the point of a representative democracy.
You're 16 right? Can we not discuss DnB, or video games or skateboarding or something?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:23, Reply)
since in reality you don't get to choose who your MP is, only which party your MP belongs to.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:27, Reply)
You vote for an individual at local level, not a party. When did you last vote?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:44, Reply)
But also any constituency with a big split between several candidates delivers even less representation since the majority of people will likely cast votes for someone other than the one who goes on to "represent" them.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:51, Reply)
Hence there is variation of views within parties- Ken Clarke is far further to the left than Osborne, for example.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:56, Reply)
but I can't vote for Ken can I. I like the Dutch system where you can vote for either a party, or a person, or pretty much anything you like. And they have very high turnouts.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:04, Reply)
Meh. I like PR on an intellectual level, but FPTP on a pragmatic level.
As long as there is party politics you'll always have to vote for someone who doesn't quite match your views, or stand yourself as an independent.
And that is just madness.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:10, Reply)
than FPTP. In fact pretty much every other way is better than FPTP.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 22:17, Reply)
I can see the appeal of a PR system. If you have a country which has just over a third of people liking one party, just over a third liking another and just under a third liking a third, then you would think that the "fairest" way would be to make them work together in a way that satisfies most of them.
But the problem with a lack of a constituency link is one I also agree with which I why I liked the idea of every MP having to actually hold a majority of the votes or face some kind of run off a la AV or STV.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:23, Reply)
For democracy to work from the ground up, there has to be a high degree of local engagement.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:24, Reply)
We agree.
And Trade boy, the main factor in Thatcher's popularity (south of the border) was the fact that Neil Kinnock was leading Labour.
Surely running against a party led by Kinnock is like competing in the Special Olympics?
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:17, Reply)
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:04, Reply)
Mark Oaten lolz.
(, Tue 13 Sep 2011, 21:15, Reply)
« Go Back | See The Full Thread