British Election: peaceful revolution

[InsaneApache]

Real Time Update: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

Tomorrow we will have a change of government. It's all to play for, for the two main legacy parties. The Lib Dems are stuffed, just look at the Euro elections last year to see that.

Red Ted Milliband wants to take us back to the seventies, (nothing wrong with that, I'm polishing my Doc Martens and dusting down my copy of Funhouse as we type!). Ahh yes the halcyon days of rampant inflation, power cuts, the three day week and wildcat strikes. I can't wait!

Perhaps we can get Dick Emery to resurrect his 'comedy' show as well.

As for the Tories, well what a bunch of tossers. They've moved so far to the left since Blair they should re-name themselves the SDP.

It looks as though Wee Jimmy Crankie of the SNP fancies herself as the power broker in a future government. Nice. 5% of the population deciding what the other 95% can get. True democracy.

That Welsh bird with the tits is quite nice though.

The Greens. They should all be sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1983.

Me? I'm voting for the only party that talks anything like common sense. UKIP.

[Sir Moody]

for anyone who is interested - current high and low predictions of seats:



Party
Lo
Seats
Hi
Swing


Conservatives
253
281
310
-25


Labour
238
266
295
8


SNP
44
52
57
46


Liberal Democrats
20
26
32
-31


DUP
7
8
10
0


Plaid Cymru
2
4
6
1


SDLP
1
3
3
0


UKIP
0
1
3
1


Greens
0
1
1
0


Other
7
8
10
0



326 is required for a Majority so no party will make it without Coalition.

UKIP will be lucky to hold onto the seats they currently have and will at most gain 1... and considering they had to withdraw a candidate today for saying he would shoot his Conservative opponent in the head if he ever became Prime Minister (apparently because he wasn't British enough since his parents had only been in the country since the 70's...) I would hardly call them the "party that talks common sense"...

[InsaneApache]

I would hardly call them the "party that talks common sense"..

Considering that the legacy parties have members who have been convicted of arson, terrorism, fraud and paedophilia threatening to shoot a Tory in the head (and miss his brain by 6 feet) is tame in comparison.

:evil:

[Crandar]

Well, it's a pity that there's no communist party in the UK. I would probably vote for the conservatives, as they are the only ones that could possibly provide a national leader comparable to Thatcher.

To paraphrase the Iron Lady, they're a weak lot, some of them in the United Kingdom you know. Weak. Feeble. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBzAwro8M90&feature=youtu.be&t=49s)

[Greyblades]

Shall we begin reenacting a rampant press war or just accuse eachother of being tossers and call it a day?


for anyone who is interested - current high and low predictions of seats:

Predicted by who?

[Sir Moody]

The biggest Irony of this whole election is AV - had the Conservatives not crushed the AV vote and we had adopted it, the predictions show they would almost certainly have a crushing Majority :laugh4:

Honestly however I don't see how any Majority can be made - the Conservatives only have the Liberals and the DUP who would support them in a coalition while Labour requires the SNP who everyone is determined to shun...

My predictions is another election within the year...

[Sir Moody]

Shall we begin reenacting a rampant press war or just accuse eachother of being tossers and call it a day?



Predicted by who?

http://www.electionforecast.co.uk/

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The biggest Irony of this whole election is AV - had the Conservatives not crushed the AV vote and we had adopted it, the predictions show they would almost certainly have a crushing Majority :laugh4:

Honestly however I don't see how any Majority can be made - the Conservatives only have the Liberals and the DUP who would support them in a coalition while Labour requires the SNP who everyone is determined to shun...

My predictions is another election within the year...

Maybe - but the Guardian has a "Tactical Vote" map: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2015/may/05/election-2015-where-should-you-vote-tactically

You'll notice that in both cases outside Scotland they advise you to vote Lib-Dem. If the Lib-Dems and the Cons can form another government they will, because as much as they may not love each other they have managed to work together and neither likes the current version of Labour.

You're right about the AV thing, primarily because of the rise of UK, with AV UKIP basically gets no seats and the vast majority of their votes would get re-directed to the Cons.

Me, I'm praying the Scots have a sudden attack of conscience and accept they SNP pays for everything with money from other parts of the UK, including the poorest parts like North Wales, the North East, and Cornwall.

[Fragony]

Just wondering why I can't vote for Farage just because I'm Dutch. The EU, what a farce.

[Husar]

Just wondering why I can't vote for Farage just because I'm Dutch. The EU, what a farce.

Yes, that you can't vote for the government of the UK is entirely the EU's fault.
I also can't get over the fact that I don't get to vote for the Norwegian queen, stupid EU.

[Greyblades]

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/labour-to-outlaw-islamophobia-says-miliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/) saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.

[Sir Moody]

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/labour-to-outlaw-islamophobia-says-miliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/) saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.

errr last time I checked it already was a Hate crime along side antisemitism - the article doesn't really go into details of what Miliband is actually proposing which suggests he is simply trying to drum up the Islamic vote and isn't planning to do anything...

as you say - Politics huh...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/labour-to-outlaw-islamophobia-says-miliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/) saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.


Well, if it helps I can tell you that Labour tried this before, under Gordon Brown, though they tried to outlaw all "religious prejudice" so you also wouldn't be able to say flat-earthers are nuts.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

errr last time I checked it already was a Hate crime along side antisemitism - the article doesn't really go into details of what Miliband is actually proposing which suggests he is simply trying to drum up the Islamic vote and isn't planning to do anything...

as you say - Politics huh...

Irrc it's not, and anti-Semetism is a race-hate crime as far as I know.

[Sarmatian]

Just wondering why I can't vote for Farage just because I'm Dutch. The EU, what a farce.

You should be rejoicing that you can't.

Down with the EU, empower the nation state!!!

[InsaneApache]

Hrm, the conservative blogs are throwing this around (http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/newspaper/top-stories/labour-to-outlaw-islamophobia-says-miliband-in-an-exclusive-interview/) saying milliband has promised to make islamaphobia a hate crime. If it were true it would be a great way to make me, a recent appreciator of free speech, vote against his party, which is probably why they are spreading it around and why I want confirmation before tomorrow, which I can't find.

Politics, huh.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/04/free-speech-campaigners-concerned-by-ed-milibands-vow-to-ban-islamophobia--without-defining-what-he-means

Nice. Now those rape gangs in Yorkshire and across the rest of the north can kneel easy on their prayer mats.

The main reason I don't like the Labour party is that it is based on hate, spite and envy. I have first hand experience of these types. Many years ago, 1973 to be precise, I met Jenny Lee. She turned up in this huge black roller, clad from top to bottom in Norman Hartnell and dripping in gold. She was cheered to the rafters by all these raggy arsed scousers who could barely afford shoes.

"She's one of us", they cried.

I looked at them, in their threadbare clothes and then at this Baroness, replete with gold bling and fancy car and thought that they were quite mad. She coudn't be any further away from them if she went to live on Pluto.

Don't even get me going about her husband Nye Bevan and that evil twisted little get Manny Shinwell.

[a completely inoffensive name]

More of the same. With all of the time spent talking about UKIP, I thought they would be at least breaking double digit numbers in parliament. What a joke.

[Sir Moody]

More of the same. With all of the time spent talking about UKIP, I thought they would be at least breaking double digit numbers in parliament. What a joke.

UKIP are a victim of the FPTP system - they will get a large amount of the "popular" vote - this doesn't however translate into seats - thank god...

[Greyblades]

It's hard to gain support to split the EU while everyone's worried about trying to preserve the UK.

Still, it is tempting to put a vote in thier pile, just to put some fear into both the big 3 parties and the EU.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

More of the same. With all of the time spent talking about UKIP, I thought they would be at least breaking double digit numbers in parliament. What a joke.

they'll likely get between a tenth and a sixth of the vote, out performing the Lib-Dems by a considerable margin, but this will not translate into seats. What they will actually achieve will be to undercute the Conservative vote, and as the Cons have committed to an in-out Referendum if they win a majority UKIP have become self defeating.

If what they wanted was a referendum then they would have rescued themselves from the election and told all their supporters to vote Tory.

[InsaneApache]

It's never 'self defeating' to vote for what you believe in.

[Papewaio]

You need to modernize with preferential voting.

[Gilrandir]

Yes, that you can't vote for the government of the UK is entirely the EU's fault.
I also can't get over the fact that I don't get to vote for the Norwegian queen, stupid EU.
First one must make her electable and thus create paneuropean Rzeczpospolita.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I will be voting Labour purely as a tactical vote against the SNP.

[InsaneApache]

I will be voting Labour purely as a tactical vote against the SNP.

Thats like a choice of being stabbed in the face or stabbed in the crown jewels mate.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Thats like a choice of being stabbed in the face or stabbed in the crown jewels mate.

Indeed it is, but I consider the SNP to be the more immediate threat. Once the nationalists lose their momentum, then I can worry about other things.

[Beskar]

Unfortunately in the debate, Nicola Sturgeon was pretty much the winner. I would have voted SNP if they didn't exclude themselves to Scotland.

[Beskar]

Many years ago, 1973 to be precise, I met Jenny Lee. She turned up in this huge black roller, clad from top to bottom in Norman Hartnell and dripping in gold. She was cheered to the rafters by all these raggy arsed scousers who could barely afford shoes.

"She's one of us", they cried.

I looked at them, in their threadbare clothes and then at this Baroness, replete with gold bling and fancy car and thought that they were quite mad. She coudn't be any further away from them if she went to live on Pluto.

You know, if you replace "Jenny Lee" with "Nigel Farage", turning up with his city banker background at the 'local pub to drink a pint with the working class', and replacing "Scousers" with "UKIP Supporters", you have the year 2015 equivalent.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's never 'self defeating' to vote for what you believe in.

No, but if what you believe is that we should have a referendum on the EU you should vote Conservative. On the other hand, if you believe UKIP are a better party for government, I would have to disagree.


You need to modernize with preferential voting.

Perhaps not:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-2015-32594267

"UK election exit poll predicts Conservatives will be largest party in a hung parliament, with 316 seats to Labour's 239. Survey by NOP/Mori for BBC, ITV and Sky"

"More details on the exit poll. It predicts the Liberal Democrats will have just 10 seats - a loss of 47 from 2010. The SNP is predicted to win 58 seats - every constituency bar one in Scotland. UKIP is forecast to have two, as is the Green Party. Plaid Cymru is expected to go up one to four."

Arithmetic favours the Conservatives being able to form a government with the Lib-Dems and the DUP propping them up, interestingly it looks like the Cons are stealing seats from the Lib-Dems and Labour both. If these polls prove to be accurate then it effectively excludes Labour from Government (again) and therefore locks out the SNP. What's troubling is the small number of Lib-Dem seats, that makes a formal Coalition less likely which in turn means less moderation of George Osborne and a less stable government generally.

The other big take away here is that the SNP will basically hold Scotland, which means that if they aren't in government or propping the government up then the Scots will effectively have no control over the direction of the Executive or the Legislative Timetable. In my opinion this shows the danger of having one ideology (Socialism) and one party grip an entire country, by voting SNP after voting to remain in the Union Scots may see themselves more disenfranchised than at any time in the previous 300 years.


I will be voting Labour purely as a tactical vote against the SNP.

A poor tactical choice, as Labour and the SNP will clump together if they can form a majority, further increasing the power of the SNP.

[a completely inoffensive name]

UKIP gained a seat from what I heard, watch out EU, the nationalists are coming for you!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

UKIP gained a seat from what I heard, watch out EU, the nationalists are coming for you!

Nope - they came second, it was a Labour hold.

[Beskar]

I wouldn't mind UKIP stealing conservative seats. Then we will probably end up with a multi-party system which means STV might end up actually being implemented instead of the broken FPTP system.

[rvg]

The Left has triumphed over the Radical Left. I suppose it's the best possible outcome given the circumstances.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nope - they came second, it was a Labour hold.

What a joke.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I wouldn't mind UKIP stealing conservative seats. Then we will probably end up with a multi-party system which means STV might end up actually being implemented instead of the broken FPTP system.

Because the most important thing is to oust David Cameron and install Ed Milliband in No.10 backed by Alistair Salmond, yes?

UKIP stealing Conservative seats will mean nothing, if you had the SNP stealing Conservative seats or UKIP stealing a lot of Labour seats people might start to ask question but all that's happening here is UKIP is picking up the protest vote in England and the SNP are picking it up in Scotland.

I think you'll find that this election will reflect the public mood, the Conservatives will come out on top but short of a majority because people don't really trust them, but they trust Red Ed and even less.


The Left has triumphed over the Radical Left. I suppose it's the best possible outcome given the circumstances.

Quite the opposite, the SNP (the closest thing we have to a Radical Left, far Left of Labour) has taken fifty of the fifty-three seats declared in Scotland, with five left to go. Oddly, the Conservatives managed to hold their one Scottish MP.

Edit: the SNP have taken 55 seats with one left to declare - it's hard to see this as good for Scotland as virtually the whole country is now represented by one partythat hold no seats in the wider UK. About the only thing this Bloc can achieve at Westminster is to bring down a government and trigger a new election as they've already said they will have no truck with the Conservatives.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I hope they trigger a new election soonjust so we can avoid talking about the upcoming US election.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I hope they trigger a new election soonjust so we can avoid talking about the upcoming US election.

Sorry to dissapoint but it looks like, in the end, people were more afraid of the SNP than the Tories. Thus far the Cons have made a net gain of 20 seats, having lost 10, if the Conservatives win 27 of the remaining 44 seats they will have a majority, Labour will be lucky to hit 250 MPs, actually doing worse than last election under Gordon Brown.

[I of the Storm]

Could somebody please explain to me in lay terms why UKIP got only 2 seats when they achieved 12%?
I'm very much unfamiliar with the british election system, and I'd like to know how this works.
Thank you.

Also: quite the prediction fail this time, it seems.

[Sir Moody]

so it looks like the opinion polls were HORRIBLE off...

The Conservatives have already said they will now bring back the Communications bill giving the security serviced leave to spy on everyone - the boundary bill which effectively gives them another 20 seats for the next election - and a EU referendum...

The liberals are utterly destroyed, Labour is weakened and the SNP are now strong but unable to make that matter... and no chance for a Voting reform now either...

not looking forward to the next 5 years

[Fragony]

I am if Camaron keeps his word on a referandum about the EU, that thing has got to die.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

so it looks like the opinion polls were HORRIBLE off...

The Conservatives have already said they will now bring back the Communications bill giving the security serviced leave to spy on everyone - the boundary bill which effectively gives them another 20 seats for the next election - and a EU referendum...

The liberals are utterly destroyed, Labour is weakened and the SNP are now strong but unable to make that matter... and no chance for a Voting reform now either...

not looking forward to the next 5 years

Well, a referendum is a good thing, it should put the question to bed - boundary changes are needed because currently Labour seats contain on average several thousand fewer voters - meaning that labour areas - like Scotland - are awarded an unfair number of seats based on population.

As to the communications bill - we'll see, passing that one won't be easy, a lot of Cons will vote against it, so currently passing it will be impossible.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Could somebody please explain to me in lay terms why UKIP got only 2 seats when they achieved 12%?
I'm very much unfamiliar with the british election system, and I'd like to know how this works.
Thank you.

Also: quite the prediction fail this time, it seems.

It helps if you stop thinking about the parties and think about the people. Basically UKIP has a broad low level of support across the UK but they their individual candidates don't actually perform well, either because they aren't very good or because there's such strong feeling against them that all the other voters in the constituency band together and vote for one candidate to keep them out.

[InsaneApache]

You know, if you replace "Jenny Lee" with "Nigel Farage", turning up with his city banker background at the 'local pub to drink a pint with the working class', and replacing "Scousers" with "UKIP Supporters", you have the year 2015 equivalent.

Not the same at all and you know it. One pretends to be down with the people, the other one is down with the people. I'll give you a clue. The latter doesn't have an effin' great big black Rolls Royce.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The heads are rolling. Looks like Miliband, Clegg and Farage will all be quitting. This result has been a shock given the polls beforehand.

[Gilrandir]

I hope they trigger a new election soonjust so we can avoid talking about the upcoming US election.
Nah! Better one more referendum.

[InsaneApache]

I think the tory tactic of scaring voters vis-a-vis a Labour/SNP coalition did the trick. Disappointing for UKIP in a way but they came second in a lot of northern seats and are now the main opposition in the rotten boroughs.

Talking of the north, I see Ed Balls was castrated in Morley, which BTW I can see Morley Church from my attic. So every cloud.....

[Kadagar_AV]

1. Could someone please summarize what the result will mean for Britain?

2. Can someone explain how 12+% of votes gives so few seats? In Sweden it would have, proportionally, given around 80....




I really don't get British politics... But it doesnt' seem very democratic from my point of view...

[Husar]

I assume/IIRC it's a FPTP per district and the winner gets all the seats for that district. So the UKIP can get 12% of the votes overall, yet lose in all but one or two districts and will then get only one or two seats instead of 12% of the seats while the winners of even the districts where UKIP got 30% or so will get all the seats for that district.

[Crandar]

1. Could someone please summarize what the result will mean for Britain?

2. Can someone explain how 12+% of votes gives so few seats? In Sweden it would have, proportionally, given around 80....




I really don't get British politics... But it doesnt' seem very democratic from my point of view...
If I got it right, the number of seats is decided by how well each party did in every electoral department, not by your percentage in the entire United Kingdom.

Consequently, the UKIP won only one seat in East Anglia, while the SNP, present only in Scotland, managed to elect deputies in almost all the Scottish electoral departments, despite getting the one third of UKIP's votes.

It's a rather horrible system, with incredibly undemocratic tendancies. If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.

[Kadagar_AV]

I assume/IIRC it's a FPTP per district and the winner gets all the seats for that district. So the UKIP can get 12% of the votes overall, yet lose in all but one or two districts and will then get only one or two seats instead of 12% of the seats while the winners of even the districts where UKIP got 30% or so will get all the seats for that district.

Seems like a flawed way to handle democracy :rolleyes:

[Kadagar_AV]

If I got it right, the number of seats is decided by how well each party did in every electoral department, not by your percentage in the entire United Kingdom.

Consequently, the UKIP won only one seat in East Anglia, while the SNP, present only in Scotland, managed to elect deputies in almost all the Scottish electoral departments, despite getting the one third of UKIP's votes.

It's a rather horrible system, with incredibly undemocratic tendancies. If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.

I wanted to thank your post... But that option wasn't available? Anyone know why? *sorry for offtopic*

I can thank any other post...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I assume/IIRC it's a FPTP per district and the winner gets all the seats for that district. So the UKIP can get 12% of the votes overall, yet lose in all but one or two districts and will then get only one or two seats instead of 12% of the seats while the winners of even the districts where UKIP got 30% or so will get all the seats for that district.


If I got it right, the number of seats is decided by how well each party did in every electoral department, not by your percentage in the entire United Kingdom.

Consequently, the UKIP won only one seat in East Anglia, while the SNP, present only in Scotland, managed to elect deputies in almost all the Scottish electoral departments, despite getting the one third of UKIP's votes.

It's a rather horrible system, with incredibly undemocratic tendancies. If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.

Well, first off it's "Constituency" and "Member of Parliament", I make the distinction because (unlike on the continent) we elect ONE person for ONE constituency. Whether you see this as bad for democracy depends on whether you think parties or individuals are more important. The candidate with the most votes in a Constituency is returned as the MP, in most instances that would have avoided the Lib-Dem wipe-out, they should have held on to the seats of their popular ministers, but didn't, and that says that not only are their own voters punishing them but their own (former) party members are punishing the party leadership.

Conversely, FPTP allowed for Ed Balls (widely reviled) to be scalped by everyone but Labour voting against in, in STV that would almost certainly not happen

Another thing to understand is that sometimes vote in protest, not for the party they want in power but against the party in power.

[Sir Moody]

Seems like a flawed way to handle democracy :rolleyes:

many of us in the country agree and were hoping electoral reform would be on the cards if we ended up with a hung parliament - no chance now :no:

[Gilrandir]

If we had a similar system, I wouldn't be surprised if only two parties were present in the Parliament, since the fall of Junta.
Lucky you are, we still have Junta at power.

[Greyblades]

Seems like a flawed way to handle democracy :rolleyes:

Backwards though it might seem compared to it's rivals like France and Germany, it has, thus far, had greater overall stability and sucess.

British politics has avoided full insurrection at home for four hundred years, it began an empire that dominated the world for a hundred and twenty four years and when the empire ended the relations between the homeland it's former dominions was unusually mild; The lack of bad blood from the fall of a large empire on such a scale has not been seen since the end of the Roman Empire.

I doubt it is an inherent superiority of the british race, or anything like that, but whether by design or merely blind luck we have been doing something right and I think it deserves some investigation to find out what.

Investigation that I should probably not be doing during the end of an essay deadline. Bad Greyblades :whip:

[Crandar]

Backwards though it might seem compared to it's rivals like France and Germany, it has, thus far, had greater overall stability and sucess.
I doubt that the reason for Britain's political stability has anything to do with the way the Parliament seats are distributed.

Well, first off it's "Constituency" and "Member of Parliament", I make the distinction because (unlike on the continent) we elect ONE person for ONE constituency. Whether you see this as bad for democracy depends on whether you think parties or individuals are more important.
Well, I always focused on parties, not individuals, as it's the ideology that matters, not your personal charisma, in my opinion. After all, the party for which I always vote has taken a rather desicive stance on the issue, since, after the elections, the elected deputies resign, in favour of the ones chosen by the Central Committee.

Lucky you are, we still have Junta at power.
I thought you were pro-Poroshenko.

[lars573]

1. Could someone please summarize what the result will mean for Britain?

2. Can someone explain how 12+% of votes gives so few seats? In Sweden it would have, proportionally, given around 80....




I really don't get British politics... But it doesnt' seem very democratic from my point of view...
First past the post voting is a winner take all system. Those percentages are of the total national vote tallies, and almost meaningless in practical terms. To get a seat you've got to get the most number of votes in your riding (aka electoral district). So instead of voting for a party line, you vote as much for the guy who's selling it in your locality. Old school Anglo-Saxon based political systems have a very strong "our man/woman" bent to who gets elected. And small upstart parties like the UKIP and Greens have a HUGE disadvantage vs the big guys like Cons or Labour.

[Graphic]

Congrats, Britain. Your system is even less democratic than America's.

[Greyblades]

I find myself wondering if that is a point to our detriment or benefit. I think both us and the USA are close to a sweet spot, of sorts.

I doubt that the reason for Britain's political stability has anything to do with the way the Parliament seats are distributed.

And I doubt that most minorities are so thin skinned as to want the english language to be completly gutted so anything even remotely carrying a problematic connotation cannot be used even by accident, but there are still people who hold the opinion that doing so will improve society.

Whether FPTP is a net contributor or detriment to britain's success is still unverifiable and thus a matter of opinion, and as I said; I believe this could do with investigation.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Britain's political stability came from close proximity to rivals and a lack of forests leading to early adoption of fossil fuels.

[Furunculus]

Congrats, Britain. Your system is even less democratic than America's.

i'm quite happy with it.

a couple of observations:

1. Labour and Lib-Dems won’t find it so funny any more when Alex Salmond makes the joke about panda bears and Tory MP’s.

2. So, First Past the Post is a broken system that can no longer deliver its primary stated benefit of majority governments, eh?

3. What is the purpose of the labour party now all the money has gone? Who will take the opportunity and fill the void…

4. Opinion Polls = 285 / Exit polls = 316 / Final results = 331 with 37% of the vote. So, yeah, the ‘shy tory’ is still very much a thing!

[Greyblades]

Britain's political stability came from close proximity to rivals and a lack of forests leading to early adoption of fossil fuels.

Uh, dont you mean success?

I get close proximity to rivals combined with a natural boundary to keep them in check might have fostered stability, but what would the use of fossil fuels contribute?

[Beskar]

Not the same at all and you know it. One pretends to be down with the people, the other one is down with the people. I'll give you a clue. The latter doesn't have an effin' great big black Rolls Royce.

Just an anti-immigratation party when the leaders wife is a immigrant.
Popularist party with no real policies other than saying what would get them elected with the most crafted media image which provokes a bad boy image intentionally.
i can go on...

[Beskar]

many of us in the country agree and were hoping electoral reform would be on the cards if we ended up with a hung parliament - no chance now :no:
I agree and disagree.
Party list is even more undemocratic. In the UK, we vote for the person who represents area. In party list countries, you don't even get that option. You get stuck with cronies and bad apples who always get into power even if they represent no one.
Now, FPTP, is bad due to the winner being a simple majority, taking all even if they only got 30% support. Now switching to STV, it would increase it to over 50%

[Beskar]

Because the most important thing is to oust David Cameron and install Ed Milliband in No.10 backed by Alistair Salmond, yes?

SNP is not a poison party to me, I think the case for Scottish independence is growing and would be good for 'us' and them. Though David would have been better than Ed on the Labour front.

Now, I am hoping for Tim Farron to lead the LibDems, he would make a good PM.

[Greyblades]

I disagree. I do not see the desire for independance as a reason in and of itself to leave, and I dont want to see them go. That a lot of thier grievances are ones I think a lot of the rest of us would agree need dealing with compunds my feeling.

Just an anti-immigratation party when the leaders wife is a immigrant.
Popularist party with no real policies other than saying what would get them elected with the most crafted media image which provokes a bad boy image intentionally.
i can go on...
I would argue the importance of UKIP is not it's conduct, though that is worrying, but it's popularity.

I think the main parties need to take more notice of UKIP, not because Farage is 100% right but because UKIP's success tells us they represents something important; They do something the other parties dont and that thing is important enough to make a lot of people willing to risk voting in the hyper nationalists just to get it addressed.

Fortunately they are still small, they can still be undercut and I hope the referendum does so.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Uh, dont you mean success?

I get close proximity to rivals combined with a natural boundary to keep them in check might have fostered stability, but what would the use of fossil fuels contribute?

Early industrialization allowed the UK to maintain easier control of territories previously considered semi-autonomous and place many territories that were autonomous under British hegemony. The economic boom of the industrial revolution made the idea of staying within the UK an easier concept to swallow since my understanding is that Scotland only unified Crowns with Britain because of financial reasons, (funny how once oil is found on Scottish shores, suddenly there is a referendum on Scottish independence).

Take the example of the US before the Civil War. If it wasn't for the rapid industrialization in the years leading up to the Civil War, it would have been much more difficult to maintain control over the South. Book I am currently reading states that even up until the late 1850s, there was at least one US state (southern, I think) which had not a single railroad line crossing through it. You can't assert independence if it takes your troops weeks to travel a distance that Federal troops cover in days.

[Greyblades]

Early industrialization allowed the UK to maintain easier control of territories previously considered semi-autonomous and place many territories that were autonomous under British hegemony. The economic boom of the industrial revolution made the idea of staying within the UK an easier concept to swallow since my understanding is that Scotland only unified Crowns with Britain because of financial reasons, (funny how once oil is found on Scottish shores, suddenly there is a referendum on Scottish independence).

Take the example of the US before the Civil War. If it wasn't for the rapid industrialization in the years leading up to the Civil War, it would have been much more difficult to maintain control over the South. Book I am currently reading states that even up until the late 1850s, there was at least one US state (southern, I think) which had not a single railroad line crossing through it. You can't assert independence if it takes your troops weeks to travel a distance that Federal troops cover in days.

Fair point, though that leaves the period between our civil war and industrialization. There was was relatively stablility on the isles compared to the mainland nations.

Although now that I think of it, that might have been down to our focus on naval superiority and geography as an island; while rebels would have had to march over the british countryside to get to eachother the British army could just get a relatively faster ride off the Royal navy and head them off. It would also explain why the american revolution was so sucessful for the rebels, the rebellions taking place further away from a coastline would mean less oppertunities for naval transport.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, I always focused on parties, not individuals, as it's the ideology that matters, not your personal charisma, in my opinion. After all, the party for which I always vote has taken a rather desicive stance on the issue, since, after the elections, the elected deputies resign, in favour of the ones chosen by the Central Committee.


And you think our system is un-democratic?

For starters most people in the UK don't want ideologically driven parties, they want good government and ideology gets in the way or that. Secondly, the practice of the elected representatives resigning after they are elected is impossible here. In the UK is you want to resign you have to beg the incumbent government to be allowed to go, you are expected to serve your term until the end of the Parliament. Thirdly, our system prevents parties from protecting people they consider important. Ed Balls was the Shadow Chancellor, second most importan politician in the opposition, but Labour couldn't protect him and the public took his scalp.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Fair poiont, though that leaves the period between our civil war and industrialization where there were internal stability on the Isles themselves.

Although now that I think of it, that might have been down to our focus on naval superiority and geography as an island; while rebels would have had to march over the british countryside to get to eachother the British army could just get a relatively faster ride off the Royal navy and head them off. It would also explain why the american revolution was so sucessful, the rebellions taking place further away from a coastline would mean less oppertunities for naval transport.

After the civil war, you had the Glorious Revolution in 1680s. Then, beginning in the mid-1700s, you had an agricultural surplus that promoted stability until the industrial revolution which shortly followed. Really, from my brief glance there was about 50 years of political stability, which isn't that long to be of any significance.

[Sarmatian]

And you think our system is un-democratic?

Secondly, the practice of the elected representatives resigning after they are elected is impossible here. In the UK is you want to resign you have to beg the incumbent government to be allowed to go, you are expected to serve your term until the end of the Parliament.

So, you have a system that prevents politicians from willfully giving up power? That's like having a system which prevents alcoholics from giving up drinking.

Let's face it, there's a very low risk of that happening anytime, anywhere.

[Beskar]

That is incorrect, you can resign, but when you resign (or die, or other legitimate reason, etc), there is a by-election, so the people in the area vote the for replacement.

You can decide to 'change sides', as in, where your party allegiance is, if the new party agrees with the move, but you are generally punished heavily in the polls. Only person to successfully 'cross twice' is Winston Churchill.

[Greyblades]

After the civil war, you had the Glorious Revolution in 1680s. Then, beginning in the mid-1700s, you had an agricultural surplus that promoted stability until the industrial revolution which shortly followed. Really, from my brief glance there was about 50 years of political stability, which isn't that long to be of any significance. Acin we dont count the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for the same reason we dont count the Jacobite rising of 1745, it lasted under a year, it was horrendously one sided and didn't cause enough upheaval to be considered a break in a run of relative internal stability.

Same reason we dont count all those little incursions during our wars when we say we havent been invaded in almost 1000 years, they didnt do enough to be considered worthy of breaking the record.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Acin we dont count the Glorious Revolution of 1688 for the same reason we dont count the Jacobite rising of 1745, it lasted under a year, it was horrendously one sided and didn't cause enough upheaval to be considered a break in a run of relative internal stability.

Same reason we dont count all those little incursions during our wars when we say we havent been invaded in almost 1000 years, they didnt do enough to be considered worthy of breaking the record.

Fair enough. I can't really explain that time period then. I still hold that the only reason your Union has lasted this long is because you got on the steam engine faster than anyone else.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is incorrect, you can resign, but when you resign (or die, or other legitimate reason, etc), there is a by-election, so the people in the area vote the for replacement.

You can decide to 'change sides', as in, where your party allegiance is, if the new party agrees with the move, but you are generally punished heavily in the polls. Only person to successfully 'cross twice' is Winston Churchill.

Well, no, you don't "resign" you take a Crown Office, of which there are two for MP's to be given for this purpose. The point is that you cannot just write a letter of resignation, you have to go to the Chancellor and ask to be let out - though in practice he's not going to refuse.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Fair enough. I can't really explain that time period then. I still hold that the only reason your Union has lasted this long is because you got on the steam engine faster than anyone else.

That doesn't actually make a lot of sense, because the Industrial Revolution was one of the most miserable times in Britain's history, with it's "Dark Satanic Mills" so what you really need to explain is why there wasn't a revolution from the late 18th Century up until the mid-19th Century. Part of the answer is that the aristocracy willingly legislated away their own monopoly on Parliament, the Second Reform Act was actually passed by the Conservatives in 1867, and that was the Act which enfranchised people living in cities - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

[Pannonian]

Britain's political stability came from close proximity to rivals and a lack of forests leading to early adoption of fossil fuels.

Or perhaps a lack of desire to repeat the political fervour that led to the Civil War and its subsequent results (something reinforced by what went on on the continent in the 18th-19th centuries). There is nothing inherently good about the monarchy. However, our experience of the alternative has not been good, and equally our experience of a morally upright government has led us to prefer one that just leaves the people alone, with as little interference in our everyday lives as possible.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That doesn't actually make a lot of sense, because the Industrial Revolution was one of the most miserable times in Britain's history, with it's "Dark Satanic Mills" so what you really need to explain is why there wasn't a revolution from the late 18th Century up until the mid-19th Century. Part of the answer is that the aristocracy willingly legislated away their own monopoly on Parliament, the Second Reform Act was actually passed by the Conservatives in 1867, and that was the Act which enfranchised people living in cities - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1867

There wasn't a revolution because despite the Industrial Revolution being miserable, it is better than living off the land for sustenance. The I.R. raised standards of living, I don't think that can be doubted. The Reform Act doesn't really change my views on the I.R. I would say that the I.R. preserved your Union precisely because it raised the stakes between the government and the governed. With a rapidly growing population that now had leisure time to demand political powers, the I.R. forced a more democratic state that operates in harmony today with much more diversity among the population than among those that lived in the 1860s. If the aristocracy had not given reforms in 1867, it would have happened in another 10 or 20 years simply because of the demographics. No one is going to let an entire government to collapse simply because they want to be the only ones calling the show.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or perhaps a lack of desire to repeat the political fervour that led to the Civil War and its subsequent results (something reinforced by what went on on the continent in the 18th-19th centuries). There is nothing inherently good about the monarchy. However, our experience of the alternative has not been good, and equally our experience of a morally upright government has led us to prefer one that just leaves the people alone, with as little interference in our everyday lives as possible.

Hmm, can you elaborate more on what you are trying to say? I find that generalizations of what people "prefer" are not satisfying (for myself at least).

[Husar]

Hmm, can you elaborate more on what you are trying to say? I find that generalizations of what people "prefer" are not satisfying (for myself at least).

Cameras do not interfere with your everyday life unless you have quantum properties.
I'm just guessing though.

[Montmorency]

Part of the answer is that the aristocracy willingly legislated away their own monopoly on Parliament, the Second Reform Act was actually passed by the Conservatives in 1867, and that was the Act which enfranchised people living in cities

It's quite easy to see that as a function of industrialization.

[Sarmatian]

Well, no, you don't "resign" you take a Crown Office, of which there are two for MP's to be given for this purpose. The point is that you cannot just write a letter of resignation, you have to go to the Chancellor and ask to be let out - though in practice he's not going to refuse.

You've got to admit, seeing a politician leave office/vacate a seat without being forced is kinda like seeing a unicorn. That's not a plus for the system.

Anyway, I don't see anything "undemocratic" in FPTP system. I just think it creates basically a two-party system and discourages political diversity.

[Greyblades]

Cameras do not interfere with your everyday life unless you have quantum properties.
I'm just guessing though.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/291/101/c28.gif

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm actually just going to say what I want to say. Cheap energy makes people happy, not so cheap energy makes people and nation states very mad. Everything is derived from the above statement.

[Montmorency]

Of course with the caveat that "energy" has usually = "muscle".

[Greyblades]

It is fair to attribute circumstance as a contributing factor to Britain's success, however to attribute Britain's entire performance to favourable conditions is disingenuous to the extreme.
God knows life has shown me even with ideal circumstances humans can still screw things up royal.

[Beskar]

It is fair to attribute circumstance as a contributing factor to Britain's success, however to attribute Britain's entire performance to favourable conditions is disingenuous to the extreme.
God knows life has shown me even with ideal circumstances humans can still screw things up royal.

Britain would have won the war of American independence if having things in your favour was all that was needed.

[Pannonian]

Hmm, can you elaborate more on what you are trying to say? I find that generalizations of what people "prefer" are not satisfying (for myself at least).

The last bout of political warfare we had was the Civil War. As a result of that, we got a government that sought to make the English people morally worthy of their puritanical ideals. We didn't like that, and we invited the deposed prince to be King, on condition that he didn't actually try to do anything. It worked well enough, until the throne passed to his brother who did actually try to do something. We deposed him, and invited someone else over to reign whilst not doing anything. When his line passed, we went the full monty and got someone in who wasn't capable of doing anything. Those are our heads of state. We allow our executive governments to do a bit more, but the same mentality is there. We don't like revolution or anyone who tries to impose their ideology on others. If we're to change, make your argument and let us change at a pace of our choosing, which will be gradual. If you can't make your case, the status quo remains.

[Brenus]

"Same reason we dont count all those little incursions during our wars when we say we havent been invaded in almost 1000 years, they didnt do enough to be considered worthy of breaking the record." That is why history is not only facts but interpretation of fact: The Battle of Lincoln in 1217 is not considered as invasion successfully push back. It is just not considered at all. Or, more recently, 1798 in Ireland, the Battle of Castlebar.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There wasn't a revolution because despite the Industrial Revolution being miserable, it is better than living off the land for sustenance. The I.R. raised standards of living, I don't think that can be doubted. The Reform Act doesn't really change my views on the I.R. I would say that the I.R. preserved your Union precisely because it raised the stakes between the government and the governed. With a rapidly growing population that now had leisure time to demand political powers, the I.R. forced a more democratic state that operates in harmony today with much more diversity among the population than among those that lived in the 1860s. If the aristocracy had not given reforms in 1867, it would have happened in another 10 or 20 years simply because of the demographics. No one is going to let an entire government to collapse simply because they want to be the only ones calling the show.

Take a look at average life expectancies in the 16th and 19th centuries, the drop is quite shocking, massive outbreaks of Cholera, TB and the prevalence of respiratory problems made life miserable in the cities. Life was definitely better before industrialisation than during the 18th and 19th centuries, it did eventually get better but for a hundred years it was pretty terrible for most people. So - you have to explain why there wasn't a revolution during that time given the hundreds of thousands living in misery.


It's quite easy to see that as a function of industrialization.

Partly, but it's notable that the impetus came from the ruling class as much as the enfranchised.


You've got to admit, seeing a politician leave office/vacate a seat without being forced is kinda like seeing a unicorn. That's not a plus for the system.

Pretty common here, Tony Blair did it, a Conservative MP did it (one tipped to become a minister too) for her children and two did it to trigger by-elections last year.

Contrary to what people say democracy in the UK is very healthy, the last major problem was the last major "innovation", which were postal ballots. Before the introduction of Postal Ballots electoral corruption was unheard of here, but people started collecting ballots for other people, altering them, not posting them, pressuring people to vote etc.

[Pannonian]

Contrary to what people say democracy in the UK is very healthy, the last major problem was the last major "innovation", which were postal ballots. Before the introduction of Postal Ballots electoral corruption was unheard of here, but people started collecting ballots for other people, altering them, not posting them, pressuring people to vote etc.

I didn't get the candidate I voted for. However, my constituency got around 70% turnout, so I'm happy enough. My area got the MP the people voted for.

[Greyblades]

"Same reason we dont count all those little incursions during our wars when we say we havent been invaded in almost 1000 years, they didnt do enough to be considered worthy of breaking the record." That is why history is not only facts but interpretation of fact: The Battle of Lincoln in 1217 is not considered as invasion successfully push back. It is just not considered at all. Or, more recently, 1798 in Ireland, the Battle of Castlebar.
To expand on this:When we say invasion we think of the Normans, angles, saxons, jutes, vikings and romans. In our eyes the french incursions were so brief and unsuccessful in comparison as to not count. Whether it does is a point of opinion.

Fun fact: the barons war was an intervention in a civil war; a precursor to the glorious revolution in several ways, though decidedly less successful for the invading would be king.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Take a look at average life expectancies in the 16th and 19th centuries, the drop is quite shocking, massive outbreaks of Cholera, TB and the prevalence of respiratory problems made life miserable in the cities. Life was definitely better before industrialisation than during the 18th and 19th centuries, it did eventually get better but for a hundred years it was pretty terrible for most people.

That is completely wrong, your question is moot. Life expectancy in the early 1800s was better than in the 1600s.

If I may quote Wikipedia, "The percentage of children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829."

Go ahead and look up the numbers for yourself, child birth deaths dropped dramatically and quality of life did increase. Think about how the bubonic plague killed a third of Europeans before industrialization vs the reoccurrences that happened during industrialization.

My phone won't let me paste the links Wikipedia gives for the statement, so I will just say the statement comes from the article on life expectancy.

[therother]

The other big take away here is that the SNP will basically hold Scotland, which means that if they aren't in government or propping the government up then the Scots will effectively have no control over the direction of the Executive or the Legislative Timetable. In my opinion this shows the danger of having one ideology (Socialism) and one party grip an entire country, by voting SNP after voting to remain in the Union Scots may see themselves more disenfranchised than at any time in the previous 300 years.
Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system. The reason the SNP has 56 of 59 Scottish MPs is FPTP. In a proportional system, the SNP would have approximately 30, Labour 14, the Tories 9 and the Liberal Democrats 4.

[Husar]

I'm just glad that Britain is doing fine, next steps are to leave the EU and finally Scottish independence and then England can rule the seas again and stop Putin from achieving a hegemony in Europe. It can really get only better from here.

[Montmorency]

So - you have to explain why there wasn't a revolution during that time given the hundreds of thousands living in misery.

Rioting and revolution are two different things, basically. Rioting is low-level, persistent, and transient, while revolution - well, you're an antiquarian, you should know what I'm getting at.

[therother]

Well, a referendum is a good thing, it should put the question to bed - boundary changes are needed because currently Labour seats contain on average several thousand fewer voters - meaning that labour areas - like Scotland - are awarded an unfair number of seats based on population.The idea that Labour-leaning seats are smaller than Tory-leaning seats is a cause célèbre in Conservative circles. The average number of electors per UK seat is 70.5k. In Scotland and NI it's around 66k, Wales it's 57.5k.

Of the top 10 biggest seats by the 2010 electoral register, which are all in England, they are split 50/50 by Labour/Tory. The Isle of Wight is the largest UK constituency at 111k voters. Under our current system, which demands a geographical link between the MP and their constituency, it probably has to be either one or two seats, ie either 111k per MP or 55.5k/MP. As the smallest seat in England, Wirral West, has 55k voters, I'd probably suggest it should be split into two constituencies. That would mean 6 of the top ten are currently Labour (the current 11th largest seat, Croydon North, is Labour).

It is true that on the 2010 electoral register figures, the 2015 Tory constituencies are bigger in terms of total number of registered voters than Labour constituencies, 72.6 ±6.3k vs 69.3 ±7.3k. In Scotland, seeing as you mention it (although Labour has but one MP there), the figures are 66.6 ± 9.9k. Almost all of the variability is due to the rural seats in the Highlands (removing them, the number change to 68.2 ± 6.6k).

So it seems at most to be a minor issue with our electoral system, the differences are not huge. I've seen various numbers banded around for how many seats it "costs" the Tories, but to be honest it's very hard to model the outcome with knowing how the new boundaries would be chosen. It's perfectly possible to gerrymander it to benefit either party whilst still equalising the number of voters per seat.

In addition, patterns of voting appear to be different in Conservative-leaning vs Labour-leaning seats. In this election, for instance, in terms of votes per MP, the Tories did better than Labour by 34k/seat to 40k/seat. For comparison, the SNP got a seat per 26k votes, the Liberal Democrats 302k/seat. The DUP are the biggest beneficiaries, needing only 23k/seat. At the other end of the scale are UKIP and the Greens, with 3.8 and 1.1 million votes per seat. Here the differences are indeed huge.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If the U.S. had 70.5k electors per seat, our House of Representatives would be over 4,300 members....jesus.

[Brenus]

"Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system." Yeah, although I am a lefty, so really not happy with the UK result, go to Israel where proportional representation does exist and tell me if it is better. The minorities being able to break alliances apart are in fact the ones in power. We had a similar system in France with the IV Republic and governments were falling one after one. However, agree that the V Republic is now out of breath and a need of a VI is real, to include more democracy and to ban for ever the forfeiture of the European treaty, or the potential of a Trans-Atlantic Trade Treaty where (US) Companies and Businesses will have the upper-hand over democracy an laws of the country.

[Pannonian]

"Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system." Yeah, although I am a lefty, so really not happy with the UK result, go to Israel where proportional representation does exist and tell me if it is better. The minorities being able to break alliances apart are in fact the ones in power. We had a similar system in France with the IV Republic and governments were falling one after one. However, agree that the V Republic is now out of breath and a need of a VI is real, to include more democracy and to ban for ever the forfeiture of the European treaty, or the potential of a Trans-Atlantic Trade Treaty where (US) Companies and Businesses will have the upper-hand over democracy an laws of the country.

As a comparison, our executive system is essentially still as it was in the days of Peel, while the representative system is recognisably that of the days pre-Civil War. I think I prefer British parliamentary democracy to the alternatives.

[Papewaio]

Again use preferential voting, compulsory turn up at poll and a bicaramal parliament that both houses are elected by the people.

Preferential voting makes tactical voting pointless and you just vote for your preferred parties in order. It means you can effectively vote for a minority of your liking and put multiple extremists at the bottom of the ballet. So you could go Lib Dem, Green, Labor, Conservative then extremist group.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Which, ironically, shows the danger of having a non-proportional, winner takes all electoral system. The reason the SNP has 56 of 59 Scottish MPs is FPTP. In a proportional system, the SNP would have approximately 30, Labour 14, the Tories 9 and the Liberal Democrats 4.

Under a truly proportional system the Tories would supposedly get something like 260 and UKIP 86, so you're get a Tory-UKIP government with a comfortable majority, according to the Electoral Reform Society but under a truly proportional system we might as well have a system like Crander where you have no control at all over who's elected.

I can see the arguments for STV and AV, I don't believe in the argument for enforced voting though because although you can force someone to vote you can't force them to participate in democracy. At the end of the day though I still prefer FPTP because it usually keeps out the nutters, the fact that it failed to do so in Scotland is probably because the people who voted for independence all voted in the election, whilst those who voted against were less likely to (higher turnout in the referendum corresponded to a more resounding rejection of independence).

Scotland is currently motivated by the nationalist and separatists while unionists, particularly Tories, are thin on the ground.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The last bout of political warfare we had was the Civil War. As a result of that, we got a government that sought to make the English people morally worthy of their puritanical ideals. We didn't like that, and we invited the deposed prince to be King, on condition that he didn't actually try to do anything. It worked well enough, until the throne passed to his brother who did actually try to do something. We deposed him, and invited someone else over to reign whilst not doing anything. When his line passed, we went the full monty and got someone in who wasn't capable of doing anything. Those are our heads of state. We allow our executive governments to do a bit more, but the same mentality is there. We don't like revolution or anyone who tries to impose their ideology on others. If we're to change, make your argument and let us change at a pace of our choosing, which will be gradual. If you can't make your case, the status quo remains.

That's a very English-centric take on what happened. I would say the constant flux was more due to trying to impose a single government over three kingdoms with distinct political traditions and competing factions, as well as the fact that many years of conflict had allowed an almost Bolshevik-style revolution where political power had been seized by an upcoming sort of lower middle-class of artisans and wealthy tenants, at a time when Britain was still to a large degree under the yoke of feudalism. Combine with that the dynamic of urban support (parliament) and rural support (monarchy and the old elite) and you get a recipe for trouble with a lot of intermeshed factors.

[Pannonian]

That's a very English-centric take on what happened. I would say the constant flux was more due to trying to impose a single government over three kingdoms with distinct political traditions and competing factions, as well as the fact that many years of conflict had allowed as almost Bolshevik-style revolution where political power had been seized by an upcoming sort of lower middle-class of artisans and wealthy tenants, at a time when Britain was still to a large degree under the yoke of feudalism. Combine with that the dynamic of urban support (parliament) and rural support (monarchy and the old elite) and you get a recipe for trouble with a lot of intermeshed factors.

I'm not too au fait with the other constituents of the British Revolution. AFAIK the Scots and Americans tended to be more fundie than the English in general, the Americans understandably so (having been motivated enough to cross the ocean twice). My favourite faction of that era are the Levellers, secular proto-democrats.

[Beskar]

Again use preferential voting, compulsory turn up at poll and a bicaramal parliament that both houses are elected by the people.

Preferential voting makes tactical voting pointless and you just vote for your preferred parties in order. It means you can effectively vote for a minority of your liking and put multiple extremists at the bottom of the ballet. So you could go Lib Dem, Green, Labor, Conservative then extremist group.

Scotland and Wales uses STV in their parliament, I believe. So it does have precedence here.just need to make it nation wide.

[Sir Moody]

Scotland and Wales uses STV in their parliament, I believe. So it does have precedence here.just need to make it nation wide.

nope they use AMS (Additional Member System) which is blend of FPTP and PR

they use STV for their local council elections.

so to summarise:

The UK uses FPTP for Westminster Elections.
Wales & Scotland use AMS for their devolved Governments.
Northern Ireland uses STV for their devolved Government.
For local council elections Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland use STV while England uses FPTP.
And we use PLS (Party List system) to elect our European MPs.

What a glorious mess our system is eh?

[Gilrandir]

British politics has avoided full insurrection at home for four hundred years, it began an empire that dominated the world for a hundred and twenty four years and when the empire ended the relations between the homeland it's former dominions was unusually mild; The lack of bad blood from the fall of a large empire on such a scale has not been seen since the end of the Roman Empire.

Austria-Hungary, anyone?



I thought you were pro-Poroshenko.
1. My statement was a sarcasm parodying Russian propaganda cliches.
2. I have no idea why you have such a notion (unless it was sarcasm as well). I'm anti-Yanukovych and pro-Ukrainian, the sum of which doesn't amount to pro-Poroshenko. I didn't vote for him anyway.

[Greyblades]

Austria-Hungary, anyone?

Eeehhh... Kinda? I mean austria-hungary was a level or two down in terms of scale, both in size and worldwide influence, than the British and Roman empires, but I dont know enough to judge how cordial the relations between austria and it's old territories remained after seperation.

I mean how many of them still likes thier old overlord to the degree that the would still tolerate the incorporation of the Austro-Hungarian flag in thier own?

[Fragony]

yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some

[Husar]

yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some

It's called stability and democracy is apparently in the eye of the beholder. Putin is a flawless democrat according to some.

[Gilrandir]

I mean how many of them still likes thier old overlord to the degree that the would still tolerate the incorporation of the Austro-Hungarian flag in thier own?
The Austro-Hungarian flag consisted of (not surprisingly) the Austrian and the Hungarian flags, so some shards of the empire do have the old flag for their new one.

15349

Others don't. And, afaik, it was also a peaceful dissolution. And I believe there is no enmity between, say, Czech republic and Austria and/or Hungary, but there are traditional tensions between Hungary and Romania.

[Greyblades]

Eh, does the Austro Hungarian empire have any any australia, new zealand or fiji analogues? For that matter are there any state or county flags in thier former posessions that retain the empire's emblem, like the canadian provinces, or the state of Hawaii?


yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some


Police arrest 15 in anti-austerity protest in London (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32678518)


Fifteen people, including a 16-year-old boy, were arrested following clashes with police during an anti-austerity protest close to Downing Street.

Officers in riot gear clashed with a "minority" of protesters who threw objects during the rally - which came after the Tory election victory.

Met Police said four police officers and a police staff member were injured.

A police investigation is also under way after graffiti referring to "Tory scum" was daubed on a war memorial.

Met Police said of the 15 arrested, 14 people been bailed pending further enquiries including a full review of CCTV footage and a 24-year-old man remains in custody after being arrested on suspicion of assault on police.

Graffiti was sprayed on the Women's War Memorial, in London's Whitehall, which is yards from where a concert to commemorate the 70th anniversary of VE Day took place on Saturday.
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/82891000/jpg/_82891087_027130871-1.jpg


Good to see the young and the dumb have given yet another round of anarchistic vandalism and rabble rousing that will be used to dismiss legitimate concerns.

[Fragony]

If you have ligimimate concerns, and I won't say a thing against them bein legitimate and valid, please do but not with harming others. I don't think it's valid but I don't oppose per sé, but just don't harm anyone who shouldn't be harmed. And that is what they are doing, just destroying and looting, what did the people who it is done to deserve to have to deal with that. It's just mean.

[Greyblades]

Fragony, I was agreeing with you.

[Fragony]

Sorry it's just a rare sight ;)

[Rhyfelwyr]

To all the SNP lovers in England that think they are are serious and intellectual party, you should take a look at the sort of candidate they elect. For example Mhairi Black, a 20 year old ned who says she wants to head-butt Labour councillors (see video) and as for the twitter account, you can see for yourselves (its in spoilers due to the swearing).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7miKIbTrMaM

https://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/Rhyfelgah/mhairi_black_zpsq9mnqncf.png

Yes, she really is the sort of politician that the Scottish people elected.

[Gilrandir]

Eh, does the Austro Hungarian empire have any any australia, new zealand or fiji analogues? For that matter are there any state or county flags in thier former posessions that retain the empire's emblem, like the canadian provinces, or the state of Hawaii?

Of course not (and I guess you know that). What I was trying to show is the lack of evident antipathy from the former colonies. At least this is my impression.

[Husar]

Now that's a girl who ain't afraid of nothing!

Reminds me a bit of the tough neo-nazi girls though...

edit: As for the former colonies debate, a lot of the eastern countries have their own neo nazi groups now, does that mean they still love us? :creep:
Some of the few african colonies we had don't hate us either now though. But I did recently get linked to an article on how the french do not treat their colonies very well: http://thisisafrica.me/france-loots-former-colonies/

The last question is an interesting one although I assume a resounding "no!" will follow from our British members. ~D

[Greyblades]

Yes, she really is the sort of politician that the Scottish people elected.

...What are her politics?

[Gilrandir]

edit: As for the former colonies debate, a lot of the eastern countries have their own neo nazi groups now, does that mean they still love us? :creep:

They were not your colonies, at least not for so long as Austria-Hungary existed.

[Husar]

They were not your colonies, at least not for so long as Austria-Hungary existed.

Does this imply that people fall in love with us even faster?
Seems doubtful given the regime we had, but those groups still popped up. :shrug:

[Greyblades]

The last question is an interesting one although I assume a resounding "no!" will follow from our British members. ~D

Kinda.

A)"Can you provide a second opinion?" ('cause the author of the article is biased as all get out and has the great warning sign that is sourcing wikipedia directly)
B)"Can you prove we did/do the same?"

And for the gag question:
C) "Can you prove anyone else did better than us"
ii) "Who didnt let thier Kaiser screw it up for them?"

[Gilrandir]

Does this imply that people fall in love with us even faster?
Seems doubtful given the regime we had, but those groups still popped up. :shrug:
I may disappoint you, but yours were not the first to offer this kind of ideology. But in fact we spoke not of "falling in love with ideology", but with a country.

[Beskar]

Not much of a peaceful revolution with the anarchs sitting in London for the past few days, admittedly.

[Kralizec]

Eeehhh... Kinda? I mean austria-hungary was a level or two down in terms of scale, both in size and worldwide influence, than the British and Roman empires, but I dont know enough to judge how cordial the relations between austria and it's old territories remained after seperation.

I mean how many of them still likes thier old overlord to the degree that the would still tolerate the incorporation of the Austro-Hungarian flag in thier own?

I think the Austrians nowadays are on good terms with the rest, but the Hungarians are generally not. The Hungarians were once like the other minorities in the empire, but managed to get a priviliged position through a revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867). To put it bluntly, they mangaged to get themselves elevated to co-opressors. Within the Hungarian part of the empire, they actively used their new power to undermine calls from other ethnicities for more autonomy, recognition of their languages and whatnot.

After the dissolution of the empire there were a lot of ethnic Hungarians in countries that historically were in Hungaria's sphere of influence. During WW2 Hungary had a fascist government that actively colluded with Nazi Germany to dismember Chzechoslovakia. Nowadays there are still quite a few of them "abroad" and this still causes tensions AFAIK.

[Greyblades]

You know, I am kinda curious what the ottoman empire splinters think of turkey now.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Farage is back as UKIP leader, Cameron wants an EU referendum by next year, and Tony Blair says in somewhat coded language that Labor needs to move closer to the Tories if they want to win (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/tony-blair-what-labour-must-do-next-election-ed-miliband).

The Guardian's top opinionator's try to understand why Labor got crushed:

1. Social Media failed us (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/tweet-socialist-paradise-election-changed-that).
2. The media were against us (http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2015/may/11/yes-right-wing-newspaper-coverage-did-cause-ed-milibands-downfall).
3. Shy Tories (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/understand-tories-won-election-go-anywhere-but-westminster).

[Greyblades]

The real reason: An albatross named Blair.

[Crandar]

You know, I am kinda curious what the ottoman empire splinters think of turkey now.
I like her, but I'm definitely the minority. Praising the Ottoman Empire is the strongest tabboo, nowdays. Even homosexuality is more acceptable than that.

Bosnians and the remaining muslims should be really fond of Turkey, though.

[Gilrandir]

You know, I am kinda curious what the ottoman empire splinters think of turkey now.


I like her, but I'm definitely the minority. Praising the Ottoman Empire is the strongest tabboo, nowdays. Even homosexuality is more acceptable than that.
Bosnians and the remaining muslims should be really fond of Turkey, though.

I may be mistaken, but I guess Greyblades (and me also) was curious of the attitude of the former muslim (Arab) provinces of the Ottoman empire.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This should be about the UK. I can't get the Brits in here all riled up if you talk about Turkey of all things.

[Gilrandir]

This should be about the UK. I can't get the Brits in here all riled up if you talk about Turkey of all things.
Replace Turkey with Argentina and you will get them as riled up as you want them to.

[Strike For The South]

To all the SNP lovers in England that think they are are serious and intellectual party, you should take a look at the sort of candidate they elect. For example Mhairi Black, a 20 year old ned who says she wants to head-butt Labour councillors (see video) and as for the twitter account, you can see for yourselves (its in spoilers due to the swearing).

https://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/Rhyfelgah/mhairi_black_zpsq9mnqncf.png

Yes, she really is the sort of politician that the Scottish people elected.

All the uglies in America must be descended from the Scots. What an unfortunate group of people

[Rhyfelwyr]

All the uglies in America must be descended from the Scots. What an unfortunate group of people

That we are.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That we are.
To be fair, the Scots really dug their own grave with this election.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All the uglies in America must be descended from the Scots. What an unfortunate group of people

The US elects bigger nutjobs.

[Strike For The South]

The US elects bigger nutjobs.

Granted, but that fact still does not change a Scots face

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Granted, but that fact still does not change a Scots face

She doesn't look that bad in real life, but I take your point.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Cameron cracking down on those that threaten British values (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32714802).

[Montmorency]

ASBOs were a dumb idea, and the practical application of this new policy seems to run along the same lines...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ASBOs were a dumb idea, and the practical application of this new policy seems to run along the same lines...

There's a good chance it won't pass, not only is it difficult to enforce but it runs counter to cherished Conservative values of free speech. To be honest, it sounds a bit Orwellian and I don't think Cameron has the majority to pass it as it stands.

[Greyblades]

Hopefully the extremism disruption orders etc are extras designed to be ditched to make the immigration reform seem more palatable to parliament.

Or maybe I am being overly optimistic to fool myself into thinking the conservatives are more than just the least shit out of a bunch of shit options.

Gods... please tell me this isn't new; that every generation with the right to vote had to deal with such woeful politics

[Papewaio]

There is not much to go with T-14 so far. Apparently it is about 10 tons lighter then Leo 2A6, while having a similarly powerful engine and bit higher top speed compared to Leo. It would seem that T-14 is similar in size to T 90, but it costs double the prize. It would be only logical to think that extra money has been put into some improvements compared to T 90.

Edit: How on earth this post appeared in this thread?...Uhm, maybe a kind Moderator could move it to the T-14 thread.

Seems Putin can't stay out of other people's democratic elections...

[InsaneApache]

Hopefully the extremism disruption orders etc are extras designed to be ditched to make the immigration reform seem more palatable to parliament.

Or maybe I am being overly optimistic to fool myself into thinking the conservatives are more than just the least shit out of a bunch of shit options.

Gods... please tell me this isn't new; that every generation with the right to vote had to deal with such woeful politics

Well to be fair all the main parties now occupy what they call the middle ground. Apart from a veneer of difference they really agree on 99% of everything. Plain packaging, gay marriage, human rights, the EU, the list is endless. The last election to actually change things was way back in 79. Now there are those that would say that 97 was defining moment but I would say that it was 97 that stated this movement to the middle ground.

As some wag commented a while ago, voting for the main three parties is like walking into a pub and ordering a pint of mild. However, when you look across the bar, all the pipes from the bitter, lager and mild all come from the same barrel.

And they wonder why people hold their noses when they vote for them.

[Rhyfelwyr]

In addition to our 20-year old nedette, we also have Chris Law as an elected SNP MP, a man who usually appears with ponytail and three-piece tweed suit and spends his time driving around in a bright blue fire engine called "Spirit of Independence".

If this was the USA these would be your joke candidates, incredibly half of Scotland and now even some English are fawning over these people.

https://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/Rhyfelgah/chrislaw1_zpsm7dg3z6e.jpg
https://i1283.photobucket.com/albums/a549/Rhyfelgah/chrislaw2_zpsg1v80ssb.jpg

[Husar]

In addition to our 20-year old nedette, we also have Chris Law as an elected SNP MP, a man who usually appears with ponytail and three-piece tweed suit and spends his time driving around in a bright blue fire engine called "Spirit of Independence".

If this was the USA these would be your joke candidates, incredibly half of Scotland and now even some English are fawning over these people.

Just one post after IA complains that all parties are too mainstream, you complain about a candidate who isn't mainstream enough and doesn't adapt to the political class by wearing the same kind of boring dark suit with white shirt. And it's obviously problematic that he doesn't drive a comfortable expensive armored limousine.
If only he could be more of the same like all the others, then we could take his same-as-all-the-others-politics more seriously as a viable alternative to all the other policies which would be exactly like his.
And people wonder why all the parties are exactly the same...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well to be fair all the main parties now occupy what they call the middle ground. Apart from a veneer of difference they really agree on 99% of everything. Plain packaging, gay marriage, human rights, the EU, the list is endless. The last election to actually change things was way back in 79. Now there are those that would say that 97 was defining moment but I would say that it was 97 that stated this movement to the middle ground.

As some wag commented a while ago, voting for the main three parties is like walking into a pub and ordering a pint of mild. However, when you look across the bar, all the pipes from the bitter, lager and mild all come from the same barrel.

And they wonder why people hold their noses when they vote for them.

Five years ago I would have agreed with you, but there are now some clear points of divergence, the Conservatives have committed to an EU referendum and to balancing the budget, while Labour refused to countenance the former and wasn't interesting in pursuing the latter.

[InsaneApache]

If you think that the referendum that Cameron is promising wont be rigged, I have a bridge.....

[Ja'chyra]

Oooh, I need a new bridge..........

The whole lot is pointless, I was talking to a Tory politician who said it nice to get confirmation that the majority of the country believe in what they say. If by that he means 24% of the voters and probably about 18% of the population then that is a very slim majority. Now I need to start looking for a new job as they want to privitise the civil service to their friends in industry.

As for people voting for the SNP, I think they would have got less votes if the government hadn't screwed Scotland over after the referendum, and UKIP has just made itself a joke by apparently refusing Farage's resignation, although why he needed their acceptance to quit is anyone's guess........

[Rhyfelwyr]

As for people voting for the SNP, I think they would have got less votes if the government hadn't screwed Scotland over after the referendum

How did they do that?

[Ja'chyra]

Oh I don't know, dirty last minute tactics, condescension and what powers have they actually handed over so far?

[Rhyfelwyr]

Oh I don't know, dirty last minute tactics, condescension and what powers have they actually handed over so far?

Dirty last minute tactics? If you mean betraying unionists by needlessly conceding powers in a desperate panic, then I agree. As for handing over powers, all parties including the SNP agreed to work with the Smith Commission and its schedule. Strangely when the SNP were offered Full Fiscal Autonomy on a plate they didn't seem for more powers any more, just starting backtracking and going on about how it would all take a good number of years to gradually put in place - strange coming from a party who thought full separation could happen smoothly in just 18 months!

[Ja'chyra]

Betraying Unionists, I wonder what the referendum would say now, I'd reckon the election is a good indication. As for Schedules didn't the PM promise draft legislation by January, and wasn't it just reported that the plans fall some way short of the Smith Commission?

Still it'll be interesting to see how much of an NHS and a civil service we have left in 5 years.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Betraying Unionists, I wonder what the referendum would say now, I'd reckon the election is a good indication. As for Schedules didn't the PM promise draft legislation by January, and wasn't it just reported that the plans fall some way short of the Smith Commission?

Still it'll be interesting to see how much of an NHS and a civil service we have left in 5 years.

Sturgeon has been haggling away with Cameron for more powers so presumably that is why nothing has gone through yet. As for promises what about that whopper the SNP told about the referendum being once in a generation event, only to continually threaten us with another one after they lost it? Privatisation of the NHS has also occured under the SNP by the way, might have been avoided if they didn't forget to spend hundreds of millions on it because they were too busy holding referendums.

SNP still didn't manage a majority in the General Election and they only took such a disproportionate number of seats because of FPTP. Over 50% of Scots voted for unionist parties. The SNP would lose another referendum if it was held today.

[Montmorency]

Though ACIN may disparage Scottish separatist efforts, it is interesting to see that the Union has likely not faced a greater existential threat in its entire history.

That in itself is something to take seriously.

What if Texas were to announce a referendum on independence, and actually go through with it? What if that referendum got 45% for independence?

As much as we in the US like to joke about such things, such an event would have dramatic implications - and even then probably not comparable to the unique implications of Scottish separatism for the UK...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Though ACIN may disparage Scottish separatist efforts,

Wut? I've been mocking UKIP, not the SNP these past few days...

[Greyblades]

Though ACIN may disparage Scottish separatist efforts, it is interesting to see that the Union has likely not faced a greater existential threat in its entire history.

Well there was that one time we invited the scottish king to take our throne only to later kill his son... that was fun, though I suppose technically before the union's official start.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you think that the referendum that Cameron is promising wont be rigged, I have a bridge.....

Rigged?

It won't need to be rigged, enough people (especially the Scots and Welsh) will vote to stay that it won't need to be "rigged" but the rest of the /EU will need to give ground or they risk something they couldn't possibly rig.


Betraying Unionists, I wonder what the referendum would say now, I'd reckon the election is a good indication. As for Schedules didn't the PM promise draft legislation by January, and wasn't it just reported that the plans fall some way short of the Smith Commission?

Still it'll be interesting to see how much of an NHS and a civil service we have left in 5 years.

Turnout in the Referendum averaged about 85%, turnout in the election was closer to 65%.

It's obvious, really - people in England voted Tory because they want a tax cut and a new house, people in Scotland voted SNP because they went a rise in the minimum wage and better pensions. Enough Scots realise the SNP is running on English petrol to want the Union to stick together.

[Montmorency]

Wut? I've been mocking UKIP, not the SNP these past few days...

I'm sorry.

[Brenus]

The EU referendum will be the fall of Cameron.
The English will vote to get out, the French will be able to let the migrants to board the ferries and go to UK (new agreement between France/EU/UK will be fun for UK to negotiate), this will be only the start. Of course, all economic/financial/legal/security treaties will have to be renegotiate, including the ones with the City...
And when UK will be out, well, it will be out...
Perhaps it will be the fall of the actual undemocratic EU and perhaps we will be able to built how it was intended to be: Political and for peace by trade.

[Ja'chyra]

Rigged?

It won't need to be rigged, enough people (especially the Scots and Welsh) will vote to stay that it won't need to be "rigged" but the rest of the /EU will need to give ground or they risk something they couldn't possibly rig.



Turnout in the Referendum averaged about 85%, turnout in the election was closer to 65%.

It's obvious, really - people in England voted Tory because they want a tax cut and a new house, people in Scotland voted SNP because they went a rise in the minimum wage and better pensions. Enough Scots realise the SNP is running on English petrol to want the Union to stick together.

And what do you base these totally unsubstantiated statements on?

[Gilrandir]

What if Texas were to announce a referendum on independence, and actually go through with it? What if that referendum got 45% for independence?

Unless Mr. P sends little green men the referendum will come to naught except might-have-beens.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And what do you base these totally unsubstantiated statements on?

The figures for the referendum and the election? Or the belief that the majority of people will ultimately vote for the status quo, viz Europe?

Well, aside from using my brain I read the BBC webpage and the papers where the figures were reported, and as to the EU - people generally vote for status quo vs economic uncertainty.

[Furunculus]

The real reason: An albatross named Blair.

I really don't think that is the case.

It is not an unreasonable argument to say that we should give more in taxation in order that government can do more good with it. But a party needs to put that in its manifesto, and the electorate needs to agree. Labours problem, as the party that would like to do more good, is that it hasn’t been able to win a mandate to tax us all some more. The message has always been we’ll take a little more from ‘other’ people, but not ‘you’. Continental consensual social democracies rest on the foundation of a greater collective responsibility which implicitly accepts state spending north of 40% of GDP. That does not exist here, and while its fine to hope otherwise, it seems a little strange to brand the rest of society as callous and immoral for not meeting ‘your’ values.

How much magic money can we invent, and do we get to magically un-invent the debt interest too? Debt interest is roughly £47b this year, up from £44b last year, and broadly the same every coming year we have a deficit north of 5%. That is much more than gets spent on defence (£35b), and more than spent on education (£44b), every single year. It is nearly half that amount spent on the great shiny shiny in labours sky; the NHS.

Bear in mind, this is how much we pay with historically low bond rates. What happens when the BoE is forced to raise rates with the return of inflation, and to halt the erosion of our savings culture? Or, when bond rates sky rocket when Greece finally gets squeezed out of the euro and the world panics over another euro meltdown? You thought that had gone away…

There was an excellent working paper from 2010 by the bank of international settlements looking at the debt trajectory of western nations. The Assumptions took into account the preelection debt reduction programme of all the main parties. Britain by 2040 was forecast to have a national debt of 400% of gdp, with debt interest repayment occupying over 25% of all government spending. This is explained by our declining demographic and technological advantages which gave our economy the breadth and depth to churn out ~3.5% growth year on year throughout the 20th century.

Then there is the small matter of Keynesian economics, recommending a surplus at the peak of the economic cycle, in order that the eventual downturn (with its impact on tax revenues), can be absorbed without massive service cuts of enormous deficit spending. But Gordon called the end of boom and bust, so no need to worry about the downturn, it was peak fun from here on in with the deficit sluice amped up to the Max. Oh wait…. We are far from being able to ignore the deficit!

Labour losing the vote of ordinary working people in Scotland and to UKIP is the reason why they lost the election, the polenta munching metropolitan master race with their hipster friends just can’t seem to connect. For that reason, much as I like MilliD, my money is on one Alan Johnson. Not to win 2020, but to stop the rot in the north.

Are Labour looking to sell something that a majority are not interested in, something that is perhaps now a niche interest? I’ll say this again: real parties seek to win on the common ground, they are interested in what is saleable, and they will promise to deliver it.

I appreciate that you may be a little bitter about this.

[Furunculus]

If by that he means 24% of the voters and probably about 18% of the population then that is a very slim majority.

i don't remember people saying how unjust it was the labour won on 23% of the electorate back in 2005...

The media has been full of articles bemoaning the tribal nature of the Tories, and how essentially decent people were being duped into supporting their evil agenda. The presumption is that I might be slightly misguided, tempted to vote for the Tories, yet in ignorance of their many failings. That isn’t even close, I am not a Tory. Rather, I am generically right wing and want limited government. What does that mean?

For me, it means spending less than 40% of GDP, and not flooding day to day life with a million regulations ‘guiding’ me down the approved path of life. As a negative-liberty kind of kind of guy (pace Isaiah Berlin), I see a greater threat to liberty from government through its two primary tools (tax and law), than I do from being free to starve in the desert. You may disagree, that is your privilege. Orthogonally to the question left/right question, I also believe in:

1. An activist foreign policy, with the military means and the public backing to conduct the messy jobs in international relations. Not just another aid power like japan, or a soft power like Germany, occasionally someone needs to do the dirty work required of a UNSC member.

2. Parliamentary sovereignty, and the sovereignty of parliament (not the same thing). There is no such thing as fundamental rights, there is no tablet of stone with the writ of humanity inscribed, there are only things that society deems important and that are best enacted and protected in parliament. Likewise, I wish to see Parliament free to enact law as it deems fit as representative of the (British) people, and so reject the transfer of fundamental sovereignty elsewhere.

These are not strictly right-wing or Tory, but they are ideas that are most closely held by the right. I want spending at less than 40% of GDP, with more than 2.0% spent on Defence, less than 1% tithed to the EU, and do whatever good can be most sensibly achieved with the rest. Which of course includes public services and social benefits. Oh, and I want a bonfire of law and regulation, starting with the absurdity expressed by the need to transport Tolley’s Tax Guide in a wheelbarrow, and likewise the restrictions on public conduct.

While we are on the subject of my callous disregard for the lamentations of the afflicted and dispossessed, it’s worth making the point that I see this as a question of compound interest… or compound growth to be precise. There is research to suggest that other factors withstanding (making cross comparison between nations essentially futile), the smaller a government is the faster it will grow. Again, this is economics so nothing is hard and fast (barely deserving the title of ‘science’ in fact), but rough figures suggest that between spending levels of 35% of GDP and 50% of GDP every five percentage point increase in spending reduces annual growth by point five percentage points. Year on year, every year thereafter. Other research suggest that the optimal size of government to maximise growth is around 40% of GDP for a large open economy. An advanced western economy, facing relative technological and demographic decline, should not be spending more than 40% of GDP lest it do serious damage to the long-term growth rate that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy for our children too:

What this boils down to is the assumption that within 20 years my government spending 37.5% of GDP (with an average growth of 2.75%) will be spending in absolute terms a very similar amount to your government spending 42.5% of GDP (with an average growth of 2.25). The difference is that in your scenario the next twenty years sees more spending, where in mine every single year beyond that point for the rest of time sees higher spending. That means more benefits, more services, more Defence, and more money left in peoples pockets. It isn’t just government revenue that benefits, it is everyone, and economic growth has done a better job of lifting billions out of poverty than every other measure combined. In short; choosing not to elevate the act of moralising over the act of being moral.

I know exactly what I want.

[Beskar]

The real question is, why are rich people rich?

You will obviously say things like "Money", "Assets", "Stock Market" and "Tax Avoidance", but this misses the fundamental point, where do this Money and Assets come from?

These assets come from society. When you work and pay for that new tv, that car, that money is collected within that company, along with hundreds and thousands of other customers, pooled together, and just splashed out. This works all the way from retailers, banks, and media.

Average hard working people sees around 37.5 hours a week. This is generally 5 days of 8 hours, with those pitiful 'breaks' where you are stuck in a place far remote, having the luxury of not being paid to be there.

Through this, depending on the level of work, the average is £26,500 (skewed by those earning a lot more). This is what you expect anyone to be earning, there are a few higher, but a lot more earning less.

Some of those earning higher are arguably well deserving of that money, such a a consultant with over a decade of experience, constantly updating their skills, over 15 years in education, including teaching in it. People of a very high essential skill base start to peak out at £100,000, sometimes even £150,000 for those true specialists.

This is a lot compared to the average person, but without those skills, society would suffer greatly, so hopefully the argument that their wages are acceptable are easily shared.

Now, let's look at the wage of the average premier league football player. In 2011 (will be far higher now..), this was £22,353 per week, or £1.16 million per year (10 of those essential specialists!). What great boon does football provide for society? Football is a sport which is done for entertainment, it typically involves getting a crowd of around 70,000 of those earning £26,500~ to sit down to watch for 90 minutes, including those who watch from TV. For this, one of those many people on that pitch is earning £22,353 for that session. Whilst it might seem I am picking on football, this is something which the whole entertainment system suffers from greatly. There are other services like banking, high-flying corporate managers, etc.

Entertainment is stereotypically very overpriced sector, which overcharges the customer in the name of big profits. Whilst it does brings us some happiness, the costs are not proportional to the value it provides society. Leading to extravagant results for those at the top.

What people seem to miss out is that these services are essentially a redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the rich. We are in fact being 'taxed' by the Rich. Whilst it doesn't have the ominous name of 'taxation' applied to it, that is what it essentially boils down to, those at the bottom of society are being taxed. An apple for me, costs the same as an apple for Wayne Rooney, except where an apple actually costs me something of a %, he can afford to keep %%% in high interest savings accounts. So where I need to work those 37.5 hours a week just to afford all my needs, eating almost all my wage packet, Wayne Rooney can pay for all that with a weeks work, then he has 51weeks worth left just to swim in like Scrooge McDuck.

Now, as you might start to realise, I am in favour of progressive taxation. This means the poorest in our society are not taxed at all, and dare say it, in many circumstances they receive money to live instead being corpses laying in our streets, whilst those on the other side are taxed a lot. What is very interesting is when we get to these arguments is how those who are not even receiving the impact of these higher taxes voice outrage on behalf of their richer cousins who can afford in the media to demonise any fair taxation system. Shouldn't those with the broader shoulder carry the most weight for our society, especially those who got those broader shoulders through stealth taxation of our goods and services?

Now, before I get the charge of "more more taxes, always more!" that is not actually true as you saw hinted above. I do believe there should be 'negative taxation' in circumstances, but in general, a removal of a lot of taxation we face today, such as possibly VAT. The biggest issue facing this would be the current debt situation which means the fairer taxation and closing of loopholes would be implemented, correcting the debt problem, then having the taxation of the poorest being lifted (done in stages). I believe that government should earn surpluses, not only to provide for emergencies, but also for future generations, and countries like Norway are awesome examples where the government can provide for its people.

Whilst some people are tutting at things like NHS, Education, and many other services which for example cost us 1/10th compared to our free market American brethren, they seem to forget something very important:
Why is us paying 10% (compared to private sector/USA) for Healthcare bad, whilst paying 1000% of what currently pay for healthcare good?
Why is that these 'profits' the US system has, are fantastic, compared to the 'drain' of people on minimum wage being able to survive cancer?

So who wins with a private healthcare system?
Those with a higher standard of living who can afford to live very healthy lives, typically not needing to use services, or those working their socks out in downtown packed urban district, struggling to make ends meet, which would require greater health investment, and unable to afford it when it truly goes wrong.
Must be great having the money so you don't have the talk when you discover your eleven year old daughter called Lucy has leukemia and you are getting charged £200,000 for a course of chemo whilst earning £23,000 per year.

People who do demonise the public services such as the NHS really do live in a fantasy land where there is a 'Private good, Public bad' mantra contrary to the actual facts of the situation, completing ignoring the massive benefits it has on society, which means you, me, our families and friends.

Society should be judged on its poorest and average people, not those at the very top.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Cameron will never allow a referendum, no matter what he says on record.

He, personally, has no interest in breaking the UK away from the EU. Additionally, a YES vote on the question "should the UK exit Britain" would immediately result in another Scottish referendum to exit the Union and join the EU as a sovereign state, and it would be waaay morel likely to succeed.

While I love the idea of the UK devolving and/or dissolving, I suspect that Tory leadership is much more interested in clinging the last vestiges of an ancient imperial order. Sure, it's under the guise of "we're stronger together", but who cares? I'd take weakness.

Anyway, this election was a huge victory for UKIP. The entire purpose this round was to inflame sentiment against the electoral status quo. When you see 4 million voters - the third largest party in the UK by vote share, far and away - have almost 0 representation in government, it pegs a huge bullseye on FPTP and will encourage devolution of England within the UK. I was very happy with that outcome, because victory was defined apart from representative outcome.

[Greyblades]

Ah I was wondering how long it would be before the irish Americans would come along to impotently sing the songs of the long dead war.

[Husar]

"should the UK exit Britain"
[...]
While I love the idea of the UK devolving and/or dissolving

I agree with both, let's turn Britain into a Dutch party island and move the UK to some corner of Australia.

[Greyblades]

While we're at it let's split Germany back into the fragments of the HRE and give hannover back to the Windsor family. You know now we've given up pretending to care about nation states sovereignty
snip
Bitter? Perhaps.
I don't hate him for his economics or really for his politics, I hate him for Iraq.
I myself opposed labour based upon the trend of minority pandering censorship that ended with the Islamaphobia promise, seeing Blair come out and support miliband and not being shown the door did little to make me reconsider. I can imagine there were a lot of people who felt the same.

[Husar]

While we're at it let's split Germany back into the fragments of the HRE and give hannover back to the Windsor family. You know now we've given up pretending to care about nation states sovereignty

That's a straw herring. Noone was talking about splitting up the UK or taking away its sovereignty, it can keep all the sovereignty it has in its own corner of Australia.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cameron will never allow a referendum, no matter what he says on record.

He, personally, has no interest in breaking the UK away from the EU. Additionally, a YES vote on the question "should the UK exit Britain" would immediately result in another Scottish referendum to exit the Union and join the EU as a sovereign state, and it would be waaay morel likely to succeed.

While I love the idea of the UK devolving and/or dissolving, I suspect that Tory leadership is much more interested in clinging the last vestiges of an ancient imperial order. Sure, it's under the guise of "we're stronger together", but who cares? I'd take weakness.

Anyway, this election was a huge victory for UKIP. The entire purpose this round was to inflame sentiment against the electoral status quo. When you see 4 million voters - the third largest party in the UK by vote share, far and away - have almost 0 representation in government, it pegs a huge bullseye on FPTP and will encourage devolution of England within the UK. I was very happy with that outcome, because victory was defined apart from representative outcome.

No, just no.

Cameron has committed, unconditionally, to a referendum. He has quite specifically poo-pooed the "no more powers" argument, and it's part of what swung the vote for him. If the Cons don't deliver a referendum they will be wiped out in 2020, and in fact if they DO deliver one and the UK splits from the EU, and Scotland splits for the UK, then they will be in an even better position.

Or, to put it another way, your argument is neither sufficiently idealistic or sufficiently cynical to be correct.

[Greyblades]

That's a straw herring. Noone was talking about splitting up the UK or taking away its sovereignty, it can keep all the sovereignty it has in its own corner of Australia.
And Germany can keep its sovereignty in whatever tiny state is elected emperor each year.

[Husar]

And Germany can keep its sovereignty in whatever tiny state is elected emperor each year.

A state cannot be emperor, using American values, a corporation might become emperor, but states are not people even there.

[Greyblades]

The people who moan about london contolling the union would disagree.

[ICantSpellDawg]

And Germany can keep its sovereignty in whatever tiny state is elected emperor each year.

The long and short is this; the UK is on its death bed.
If they remain a part of the EU, it is merely a puppet state, destined to lose all power to the central authority.

If they leave the EU, the Scots will break away, and after that it will only be a matter of time before the N Irish do the same.

The only way that Cameron can save the UK is to use their position of strength to devolve the EU itself and cripple the EU's hold over other nations. Further, Cameron can devolve-max England within the UK.

I believe that he will put the referendum off until he can extract massive concessions from Brussels, and that then he will use the new position to campaign AGAINST a vote to split. If he can't exact the concessions,y bet is no referendum at all.

[Husar]

Yes, Merkel will lead the EU to new glory, but Britain will only be that island with all the banks and not get 50% of the seats with 10% of the population as they are used to from their own election system.

[Greyblades]

The long and short is this; the UK is on its death bed.
If they remain a part of the EU, it is merely a puppet state, destined to lose all power to the central authority.

If they leave the EU, the Scots will break away, and after that it will only be a matter of time before the N Irish do the same.

The only way that Cameron can save the UK is to use their position of strength to devolve the EU itself and cripple the EU's hold over other nations. Further, Cameron can devolve-max England within the UK.

I believe that he will put the referendum off until he can extract massive concessions from Brussels, and that then he will use the new position to campaign AGAINST a vote to split. If he can't exact the concessions,y bet is no referendum at all.Yeah, no. The northern irish won't leave (unless they were to go with scotland, they are too weak right now to stand on thier own and they wont rejoin ireland as long as the ex-IRA are still alive), and another Scottish referendum wont happen for at least another twenty years, what with it being "settled for a generation... perhaps for a lifetime" in they eyes of everyone outside the SNP.

As for falling into irrelevancy, people have been predicting we'd become that for every major event we've been in for the last half a century, we're still here.

But please, keep dreaming for the fall of a nation you have nothing to do with over the the misdeeds of people long dead against other people long dead, neither peoples you have ever met, if it helps you sleep at night.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/555/782/20f.jpg

[Pannonian]

Yeah, no. The northern irish won't leave (unless they were to go with scotland, cause they couldnt stand on thier own and they wont rejoin ireland as long as the ex-IRA are still alive), and another Scottish referendum wont happen for at least another twenty years, what with it being "settled for a generation... perhaps for a lifetime" in they eyes of everyone outside the SNP.

As for falling into irrelevancy, people have been predicting we'd become that for every major event we've been in for the last half a century, we're still here.

But please, keep dreaming for the fall of a nation you have nothing to do with over the the misdeeds of people long dead against other people long dead, neither peoples you have ever met, if it helps you sleep at night.


I can understand OOTers sharing the feeling over the glory of a team that they identify with. However, OOTers sharing in the gloating over the misfortunes of a team they have nothing to do with, is something I won't understand. If ICSD wants to support a second team, he should pick one and show his support for them. Instead of pointing his finger at someone he has no relationship with and gloating.

[Gilrandir]

What great boon does football provide for society? Football is a sport which is done for entertainment, it typically involves getting a crowd of around 70,000 of those earning £26,500~ to sit down to watch for 90 minutes, including those who watch from TV. For this, one of those many people on that pitch is earning £22,353 for that session.
Like many other worldwide popular entertainments, such sports as football, basketball, ice hockey have grown into huge enterprises for earning money (tickets, broadcasting rights, advertisement placing, journalists, commentators, T-shirts and other attributes of athletes...) and thus providing a substantial segment of people with work.

[Husar]

Like many other worldwide popular entertainments, such sports as football, basketball, ice hockey have grown into huge enterprises for earning money (tickets, broadcasting rights, advertisement placing, journalists, commentators, T-shirts and other attributes of athletes...) and thus providing a substantial segment of people with work.

Slave plantations also provided a lot of people with work...

[Gilrandir]

Slave plantations also provided a lot of people with work...
Yeah, right, Schweinsteiger and Neuer work like slaves.

[Beskar]

Yeah, right, Schweinsteiger and Neuer work like slaves.

They would be the prized Gladiator, whilst the majority would be in the slave pits. On the grander scale, their wages are in the top 1% (maybe even 0.1%).

[Husar]

Yeah, right, Schweinsteiger and Neuer work like slaves.

Reductio ad absurdum and/or completely missed the point?

My argument was that not everyone profits just because a lot of people have work and you name the examples of people who may actually profit too much from it compared to a lot of others who you previously used to justify the high prices of sports merchandise. That Schweinsteiger makes too much money does not help any of the children who have to produce the tricots for 10 cents an hour in some asian village so that some corporation can sell them for 80 bucks or whatever inflated price they cost.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Yeah, no. The northern irish won't leave (unless they were to go with scotland, they are too weak right now to stand on thier own and they wont rejoin ireland as long as the ex-IRA are still alive), and another Scottish referendum wont happen for at least another twenty years, what with it being "settled for a generation... perhaps for a lifetime" in they eyes of everyone outside the SNP.

As for falling into irrelevancy, people have been predicting we'd become that for every major event we've been in for the last half a century, we're still here.

But please, keep dreaming for the fall of a nation you have nothing to do with over the the misdeeds of people long dead against other people long dead, neither peoples you have ever met, if it helps you sleep at night.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/555/782/20f.jpg

I want to see every nation collapse into devolution. I'ts nothing to do with the UK - I love the various countries and wouldnt like to see their aggregate influence reduced

You just live under a monarchy. What is wrong with you? I'd like to see monarchies and the concept of nation states go away

My own nation is not exempt from this feeling. I'd like to see it devolve or break-up too.let people experiment with new ways of governing themselves and living their lives.

We live in an age of great centralization. It could just as easily be followed by dissolution. Start in the places of least resistance. That place today is the UK.People say it will happen until it happens. Then they say that it happened.

[Pannonian]

I want to see every nation collapse into devolution. I'ts nothing to do with the UK - I love the various countries and wouldnt like to see their aggregate influence reduced

You just live under a monarchy. What is wrong with you? I'd like to see monarchies and the concept of nation states go away

My own nation is not exempt from this feeling. I'd like to see it devolve or break-up too.let people experiment with new ways of governing themselves and living their lives.

We live in an age of great centralization. It could just as easily be followed by dissolution. Start in the places of least resistance. That place today is the UK.People say it will happen until it happens. Then they say that it happened.

So you're in favour of imposing your ideals on other peoples and letting them deal with the consequences. Were you a neo-con last decade?

[Beskar]

You just live under a monarchy. What is wrong with you?

Reminds me of this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I believe that he will put the referendum off until he can extract massive concessions from Brussels, and that then he will use the new position to campaign AGAINST a vote to split. If he can't exact the concessions,y bet is no referendum at all.

The bold part is very explicitly the plan - Cameron is pro-Europe he's just not pro all the regulation. However, he has also said that he will allow a referendum regardless and if he can't exact de-centralisation from the EU he won't defend the status quo.

You may think you understand the UK but the fact is we have very little in common with you Americans. Americans are the people who left the oppression of Eureop so they could oppress other people even more in the "New World", slavery is a purely colonial thing that was illegal in the UK and most of Europe even before colonialism really got started.

An American friend of mine was over during the referendum, she said people were emailing her excitedly going "what's it like there right now" after it was a No - her response to them was "nobody here cares, maybe in London, but not here."

The only real concern in England regarding Scottish independence was where we would base our missile Subs. Even taking account of the oil reserves the fact is that Soctland is a net drag on the UK economy and the public purse, and now that they've decided to vote in one party across the board they've become a genuine political problem which might actually require amputation. Northern Ireland is in an even worse state, decades of Civil War have wrecked it's economy and it didn't produce anything of special value before, Wales was valuable but its mines are mostly tapped out and it, too, is a net drag.

Basically, all the money in the UK is made in England and most of the money in England is made in London.

Now, given that you want to see Europe fracture into hundreds of pieces that presumably means you want war (it's the inevitable result of the ensuring economic collapse) so what kind of war would you like, Nuclear or post-apocalyptic?

[ICantSpellDawg]

The bold part is very explicitly the plan - Cameron is pro-Europe he's just not pro all the regulation. However, he has also said that he will allow a referendum regardless and if he can't exact de-centralisation from the EU he won't defend the status quo.

You may think you understand the UK but the fact is we have very little in common with you Americans. Americans are the people who left the oppression of Eureop so they could oppress other people even more in the "New World", slavery is a purely colonial thing that was illegal in the UK and most of Europe even before colonialism really got started.

An American friend of mine was over during the referendum, she said people were emailing her excitedly going "what's it like there right now" after it was a No - her response to them was "nobody here cares, maybe in London, but not here."

The only real concern in England regarding Scottish independence was where we would base our missile Subs. Even taking account of the oil reserves the fact is that Soctland is a net drag on the UK economy and the public purse, and now that they've decided to vote in one party across the board they've become a genuine political problem which might actually require amputation. Northern Ireland is in an even worse state, decades of Civil War have wrecked it's economy and it didn't produce anything of special value before, Wales was valuable but its mines are mostly tapped out and it, too, is a net drag.

Basically, all the money in the UK is made in England and most of the money in England is made in London.

Now, given that you want to see Europe fracture into hundreds of pieces that presumably means you want war (it's the inevitable result of the ensuring economic collapse) so what kind of war would you like, Nuclear or post-apocalyptic?

Stop it, we can have globally catastrophic war without nuclear apocalypse. Just you watch.

Regarding "a place to moor your missile subs" - spend the time attempting to break Shetland & the Orkney's away from Scotland. They aren't Scottish and don't support this brand of secession anyway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_status_of_Orkney,_Shetland_and_the_Western_Isles#2014_Referendum_Results). Just promise them greater devolution than the Scots will offer and keep all of your precious subs there.

People are the same everywhere. They may have different political opinions (or none) based on their environment, influences, or upbringing - but they are the same in general. We have an unbelievable amount of statists here and you have a ton of right-leaning anarchists over there. The vast majority of people have almost zero understanding of anything that is going on and can be swayed in any direction based on the skill of the arguer or the weight of their argument. It is just a balance and it will change this way and that over time. 80% of people are a malleable fluff conductor; heat this moment - cold the next. The rest of us like riling people up. That is what keeps the world interesting

[Greyblades]

People are the same everywhere. They may have different political opinions (or none) based on their environment, influences, or upbringing - but they are the same in general. We have an unbelievable amount of statists here and you have a ton of right-leaning anarchists over there. The vast majority of people have almost zero understanding of anything that is going on and can be swayed in any direction based on the skill of the arguer or the weight of their argument. It is just a balance and it will change this way and that over time. 80% of people are a malleable fluff conductor; heat this moment - cold the next. The rest of us like riling people up. That is what keeps the world interesting
So have you ever considered that you are part of that 80% and that your belief, that anarcho libertarianism is desirable, is also a result of your environment, influences, or upbringing?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Reminds me of this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802)

I like that article, thanks. I am against the American Presidential system. As I've said, I believe in crippling most forms of central power.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So have you ever considered that you are part of that 80% and that your belief, that anarcho libertarianism is desirable, is also a result of your environment, influences, or upbringing?

Of course that is possible, but it the most fun political perspective that I have held yet.
Technically, I'm a constitutional minarchist. Sometimes I call myself a Libertorian (Libertarian/Victorian).

But I am a believer in secession. You have to start in the mind; first you break away from the laws of men in your thought, then set out to work on breaking the hold of other men over laws and power.

[Montmorency]

An effort to "cripple" central power would require ongoing collectivist efforts in creating an alternative political unit that is constantly suppressing opposing centralist efforts.

The irony is of course lost on libertarians.

[Pannonian]

An effort to "cripple" central power would require ongoing collectivist efforts in creating an alternative political unit that is constantly suppressing opposing centralist efforts.

The irony is of course lost on libertarians.

I actually know people who remember a time before a strong central authority, and their own village/town used to be a regional power before said strong central authority took over. They've experienced the reality that libertarians dream about, and they have no fantasies about it. Despite their relatively greater political power back in the day, the strong central authority led to greater social connectivity, with central authority being a prerequisite for trade and business. American libertarians pretending to favour libertarianism in other countries are simply weakening others in the name of "ideals", so that they're in a relatively better position to lord it over them. It's pathetic, and it doesn't even come up front with its aims like old school imperialism.

ICSD, if your'e truly in favour of libertarianism, perhaps you can observe the first rule of libertarianism. Mind your own business.

[ICantSpellDawg]

An effort to "cripple" central power would require ongoing collectivist efforts in creating an alternative political unit that is constantly suppressing opposing centralist efforts.

The irony is of course lost on libertarians.

What you have described is what defines cancerous centralism.
The irony is lost on you.

[ICantSpellDawg]

ICSD, if your'e truly in favour of libertarianism, perhaps you can observe the first rule of libertarianism. Mind your own business.

Mind your own business in law. It says nothing of how you should comport yourself in your personal life. I can rail against gays and Jews, Christians and puppies - but I cannot outlaw them.
You can be the Pope, the Businessman, Cage fighter, philosphical socialist - whatever you choose

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An effort to "cripple" central power would require ongoing collectivist efforts in creating an alternative political unit that is constantly suppressing opposing centralist efforts.

The irony is of course lost on libertarians.

Pompey and Caesar phoned - they want their fratricidal war back.

There is one phrase in the Bible that you have to accept regardless of your confession - "there is no new thing under the sun".

The breakup of Yugoslavia is a lesson on what happens when people want political self-dtermination, and what happens when that triggers economic collapse.

[Pannonian]

Mind your own business in law. It says nothing of how you should comport yourself in your personal life.

Your business is none of mine. My business is none of yours. Our business is none of yours.

I'd have thought an American, of all people, would understand the principle that others should not presume to preach to them how they should think. That was why youse lot went over there in the first place, wasn't it?

[Husar]

What you have described is what defines cancerous centralism.
The irony is lost on you.

:laugh4: You can't be serious... :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

Pompey and Caesar phoned - they want their fratricidal war back.

There is one phrase in the Bible that you have to accept regardless of your confession - "there is no new thing under the sun".

The breakup of Yugoslavia is a lesson on what happens when people want political self-dtermination, and what happens when that triggers economic collapse.

ICSD would be happy with that, as it promotes conditions for US hegemony, which is what he really wants (in the guise of libertarianism for others, in his prescribed form). Of course, libertarianism in a prescribed form is an oxymoron, but then that's not really what ICSD preaches. He just wants a certain form of libertarianism for others, so that they can be more easily exploited by his like.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Your business is none of mine. My business is none of yours. Our business is none of yours.

I'd have thought an American, of all people, would understand the principle that others should not presume to preach to them how they should think. That was why youse lot went over there in the first place, wasn't it?

No, people left because of destructive legal policies that forced them to, in order to stay alive or in one piece.
Your business is my business. My business is your business. We are able and encouraged to voice our opinions and proselytize to our hearts content. The line comes at the point of force, compulsion. Have you really not gotten this?

Nobody is talking about invading the UK to force our ideas on you. I'm just sitting back with the popcorn and heckling the actors. You know what that's like.
Please, preach to me.

[Pannonian]

No, people left because of destructive legal policies that forced them, in order to stay alive or in one piece.
Your business is my business. My business is your business. We are able and encouraged to voice our opinions and proselytize to our hearts content. The line comes at the point of force, compulsion. Have you really not gotten here?

Nobody is talking about invading the UK to force our ideas on you. I'm just sitting back with the popcorn and heckling the actors.

Perhaps you should learn more about Brits before you continue raffing on. We hate evangelists, of any colour.

[ICantSpellDawg]

man-up

[Montmorency]

The line comes at the point of force, compulsion.

Once again, to maintain libertarianism you would need extraordinary coercive power (i.e. "force") - and then you're clearly not libertarian at all, no?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Once again, to maintain libertarianism you would need extraordinary coercive power (i.e. "force") - and then you're clearly not libertarian at all, no?

I'm a strong believer is extraordinary coercive power. All of the dogs of war to defend oneself or those who need it to protect them from coercion.
What does this have to do with "British Election, peaceful revolution"?

My points were/are:
-This was an important election
-UKIP made a dent
-Scotland will vote in another referendum in the event that the UK has the opportunity to vote to secede from the EU
-Devolution for England is coming and could also prompt Scotland to Secede once financial benefits are cut
-Cameron is using the promise of referendum purely as a political tool to curry votes and will do anything to keep the football in play as long as possible. He wants the EU, and the best way to keep it is to not have a -referendum at all. He is exactly the same as Labour in that he has absolutely no intention of holding a referendum, merely using it as a weak threat against the EU (it won't pass, so it isn't a threat) and as a vote magnet for those who hate the EU to keep them from voting UKIP.

[Greyblades]

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/276/653/0d7.jpg


Of course that is possible, but it the most fun political perspective that I have held yet.
Technically, I'm a constitutional minarchist. Sometimes I call myself a Libertorian (Libertarian/Victorian).

But I am a believer in secession. You have to start in the mind; first you break away from the laws of men in your thought, then set out to work on breaking the hold of other men over laws and power.

man-up
Fair enough.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have a much better idea -

All men shall serve SPQR, we shall elect a new Augustus, we shall speak only Latin, we shall have a Pax Eterna and we shall all be free to trade, farm and make as much money as possible without having to worry about our political rights or having to make any political decisions.

I'm sold - who's with me?

All we have to do is conquer the entire world and force every government to submit.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I have a much better idea -

All men shall serve SPQR, we shall elect a new Augustus, we shall speak only Latin, we shall have a Pax Eterna and we shall all be free to trade, farm and make as much money as possible without having to worry about our political rights or having to make any political decisions.

I'm sold - who's with me?

All we have to do is conquer the entire world and force every government to submit.

That sounds terrible. The fight is what is best about life.

[Greyblades]

I have a much better idea -

All men shall serve SPQR, we shall elect a new Augustus, we shall speak only Latin, we shall have a Pax Eterna and we shall all be free to trade, farm and make as much money as possible without having to worry about our political rights or having to make any political decisions.

I'm sold - who's with me?

All we have to do is conquer the entire world and force every government to submit.

https://41.media.tumblr.com/4fd04ccce05e5017a5fedd86ce285fc2/tumblr_ms8ezvo6881s77vujo1_1280.png

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That sounds terrible. The fight is what is best about life.

Proving that what you really want is a good war - and you claim we Brits are pining for the past.

[Greyblades]

I have a much better idea -

All men shall serve SPQR, we shall elect a new Augustus, we shall speak only Latin, we shall have a Pax Eterna and we shall all be free to trade, farm and make as much money as possible without having to worry about our political rights or having to make any political decisions.

I'm sold - who's with me?

All we have to do is conquer the entire world and force every government to submit.

http://rs2img.memecdn.com/logic-in-civalization-v-and-other-4x-games_c_4215613.jpg
Yeah, I realize I'm just spamming at this point.

You know, it's surprisingly hard to find a good roman empire meme.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Proving that what you really want is a good war - and you claim we Brits are pining for the past.

You think that war is "the past". nonsense.

I didn't necessarily mean "the fight" as war per se. That is a component of conflict, but not the only way to fight.

[Gilrandir]

Reductio ad absurdum and/or completely missed the point?

Funny you don't find your slave exmple reductio ad absurdum.



My argument was that not everyone profits just because a lot of people have work and you name the examples of people who may actually profit too much from it compared to a lot of others who you previously used to justify the high prices of sports merchandise. That Schweinsteiger makes too much money does not help any of the children who have to produce the tricots for 10 cents an hour in some asian village so that some corporation can sell them for 80 bucks or whatever inflated price they cost.
My point is that any enterprise gives work to some people and at the same time inconveniences/disadvantages other people. While Beskar claimed that sports has no positive input whatever into the welfare of a country.

[Husar]

Funny you don't find your slave exmple reductio ad absurdum.

It was meant to showcase a much broader point that just having work does not necessarily mean you benefit from it.
I wasn't even sure whether your point was one, that's why I said "and/or" and put a question mark behind the entire thing, but you are free to ignore that of course.


My point is that any enterprise gives work to some people and at the same time inconveniences/disadvantages other people. While Beskar claimed that sports has no positive input whatever into the welfare of a country.

And my point was that sports is one of the prime examples of the rich exploiting everyone else. Even the players themselves are not good examples for rich people as many of them lack the education to hold on to their wealth for long after their retirement and get stripped of their wealth by hawkish people. So in the end they are often just exploited as well. Also consider that professional sportsmen often demand so much from their bodies that they get health problems in the medium or long term. The US NCAA does also not pay their players and pretends to pay them with education while it signs them up for fake classes where they hardly get educated.1 Meanwhile the league rakes in millions from advertising and merchandise etc. They get a few years of a good time and lots of promises and then often end up as poor as they began. Some also don't of course, but I'm also convinced that some of the money spent on all the sports stuff would advance our societies more if it were spent elsewhere. It's great that it makes people happy and it shouldn't be banned or abandoned, it's the way it is commercialized and the way people are exploited all around it that should be changed.
Whether it has an effect on the welfare of the country is debatable. If most of the wealth created ends up with rich people who invest it to drain even more wealth from the middle class then it probably just advances our wealthy elites.

1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX8BXH3SJn0

[Gilrandir]

It was meant to showcase a much broader point that just having work does not necessarily mean you benefit from it.


Like I said: not neccessarily "you", but someone surely does. Sometimes the number of those "someone" is so great that whether "you" benefit doesn't matter (on the national scale).



And my point was that sports is one of the prime examples of the rich exploiting everyone else.


Any business that attracts so many consumers does it by default. So we might as well be indignant at the rich exploiting others by means of arms production, modern gadgets manufacture, chocolates or movie making... The list is pretty long, so there is no need to be especially hard on sports. It is the way modern world works and I don't see any prospects that it might be otherwise.



I'm also convinced that some of the money spent on all the sports stuff would advance our societies more if it were spent elsewhere. It's great that it makes people happy and it shouldn't be banned or abandoned, it's the way it is commercialized and the way people are exploited all around it that should be changed.


I'm sure if you do that to sports those who invested the money into it will find other ways of "exploiting the others". This money will not find its way into your or my pockets.



If most of the wealth created ends up with rich people who invest it to drain even more wealth from the middle class then it probably just advances our wealthy elites.


This is the way business is run: one can never stop making money and say "nuff'z'nuff". Business thrives as long as it expands and takes what profit it can wherever it sees it. To change it one's gotta change the whole philosophy of the society of consumption, which is again what isn't gonna happen in the foreseeable future.

[Husar]

So how about we try to find a way to stop people from exploiting others and fix sports in the process?
I didn't know that I was especially hard on sports, I said it's a good example, but that doesn't mean it is the only example.
And the change isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future if everybody denies that it will happen and just gives up.
As Americans will surely tell you as well, change is brought about by those brave enough to attempt it against all the odds, it's the American way.

[Gilrandir]

So how about we try to find a way to stop people from exploiting others and fix sports in the process?
And the change isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future if everybody denies that it will happen and just gives up.

Starting exploiting others was starting the modern civilization as we know it today. To stop it one has to undo millenia of development. I don't think it is possible. And railing against it and demanding fair play is like crying foul that Norway doesn't get as much sunshine and warmth as California.

[Sir Moody]

Starting exploiting others was starting the modern civilization as we know it today. To stop it one has to undo millenia of development. I don't think it is possible. And railing against it and demanding fair play is like crying foul that Norway doesn't get as much sunshine and warmth as California.

100 years ago the idea Europe could peacefully coexist was considered impossible.
200 years ago the idea Slaves would ever be treated equally in the US was unheard of.
1000 years ago the idea the common man could pick their leader and not just except the noble who held his land was unthinkable.

Things change - they change by railing against them and demanding change.

[Gilrandir]

100 years ago the idea Europe could peacefully coexist was considered impossible.
200 years ago the idea Slaves would ever be treated equally in the US was unheard of.
1000 years ago the idea the common man could pick their leader and not just except the noble who held his land was unthinkable.

Things change - they change by railing against them and demanding change.

Exploitation exists much longer than the dates you mentioned. It is so deeply entrenched in minds, social instututions and business that if you start railing today the results will not be felt in the foreseeable future.
And as for people picking up their leader - this forum is most pessimistic about the picking up pointing that in fact there is no choice and all of them are the exploitators (or nominated by the exploitators to protect their interests). Only now they get elected rather than seize the power by force.
Anyway, the world without exploitation was attempted in Russia 100 years ago - the results were lamentable.

[Montmorency]

Things change - they change by railing against them and demanding change.

Or perhaps these changes are merely superficial...


the world without exploitation was attempted in Russia 100 years ago

On the other hand, that aspect of the attempt was superficial too.

[Husar]

Exploitation exists much longer than the dates you mentioned. It is so deeply entrenched in minds, social instututions and business that if you start railing today the results will not be felt in the foreseeable future.

And if you start even later than today, the results may never be seen. Your excuse is invalid.


Or perhaps these changes are merely superficial...

That's why people are still railing for change, the difference is that without the superficial changes we wouldn't have even tried. And a few of the changes did bring improvements, at least temporary ones or ones not related to the core issues.

[Furunculus]

Bitter? Perhaps.
I don't hate him for his economics or really for his politics, I hate him for Iraq.
I myself opposed labour based upon the trend of minority pandering censorship that ended with the Islamaphobia promise, seeing Blair come out and support miliband and not being shown the door did little to make me reconsider. I can imagine there were a lot of people who felt the same.

agreed on the minority greievance culture.

but not bitter, no, quite elated in fact that we aren't headed in the direction of 40+ percent of GDp on spending.

[Gilrandir]

And if you start even later than today, the results may never be seen. Your excuse is invalid.

As far as I understand, you have begun your struggle against exploitation for making the world just and fair. I'll watch your progress closely.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yes, please cast skepticism about western European attempts at democratization and meritocracy. Because as we all know, the eastern Europeans that are massively migrating away from their countries simply want to enjoy some sunny weather in Britain.

[Gilrandir]

Because as we all know, the eastern Europeans that are massively migrating away from their countries simply want to enjoy some sunny weather in Britain.
So, you want to change climate as well? Good luck.

[Beskar]

Whilst Rhy attacked Mhairi Black harshly, calling her a clown, she has just made her maiden speech in Parliament.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33585087

I don't think it was bad at all. :shrug:

[Strike For The South]

The Sottish accent is horrendous and they should be exterminated.

She needs to slow down when she talks.

[Brenus]

"Anyway, the world without exploitation was attempted in Russia 100 years ago - the results were lamentable." When?

[lars573]

Reminds me of this. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32741802)
While I don't disagree with any of the points made. I do feel they're missing one important nuance about the US Presidential system. From the perspective of the patriots they were just democratizing the system they already lived under in the Colonial governments. Colonial provincial governments until the late 1840's operated much more like Tudor era English/British governments. That is the sovereign (or rather their deputy, the Governor) was supreme and only partially accountable to the local legislature. And the legislature was more of a consultative body. Denizens of the mother islands have little concept of Responsible Government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible_government) something we dominion residents learn a lot about. If you're not interested in the link it's a top down imposition of the glorious revolution on colonial government. Starting in 1849 in the colonies that formed the nucleus of Canada.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The Sottish accent is horrendous and they should be exterminated.

She needs to slow down when she talks.

Don't judge us by Mhairi Black's fake put-on ned accent - she's from a middle-class family, her dad's an academic and she went to Glasgow University.

Anyway, I finally made my TV debut:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwsjJwPPvos

[Sarmatian]

I wanna adopt that guy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having been defeated in the last referendum the SNP are considering holding another one, how European of them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-33668976

This bollocks is going to make Scotland a toxic country for investment, to say nothing of the repeated battering Scottish and British national identity is getting.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Would James Bond vote Tory or Labour?

[Montmorency]

Which James Bond?

If we're talking about James Bond as a character, then he almost-certainly wouldn't be voting at all. Though he serves his country to the utmost, he does not do so in the usual civilian capacities.

[Pannonian]

Which James Bond?

If we're talking about James Bond as a character, then he almost-certainly wouldn't be voting at all. Though he serves his country to the utmost, he does not do so in the usual civilian capacities.

He could send in a postal vote. All he needs is a UK address and someone to forward the letters to him, and once he's filled in his details and sent them back, he can vote in all his local elections.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Which James Bond?

If we're talking about James Bond as a character, then he almost-certainly wouldn't be voting at all. Though he serves his country to the utmost, he does not do so in the usual civilian capacities.


Well let's break it down I guess:

Ian Flaming's Novelization version: Tory or Labour?
Sean Connery's version: ? (lol jk, we know it would be SNP)
Roger Moore's version: ?
Pierce Brosnan's version: ?
Daniel Craig's version: ?

[Montmorency]

He could send in a postal vote. All he needs is a UK address and someone to forward the letters to him, and once he's filled in his details and sent them back, he can vote in all his local elections.

That's beside the point, which is that he specifically functions as a non-existent citizen. That's his life, his sacrifice.

[Pannonian]

That's beside the point, which is that he specifically functions as a non-existent citizen. That's his life, his sacrifice.

To vote in a UK general election a person must be registered to vote and also:
. be 18 years of age or over on polling day
. be a British citizen, a qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland
. not be subject to any legal incapacity to vote

Additionally, the following cannot vote in a UK general election:
. members of the House of Lords (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
. EU citizens resident in the UK (although they can vote at elections to local authorities, devolved legislatures and the European Parliament)
. anyone other than British, Irish and qualifying Commonwealth citizens
. convicted persons detained in pursuance of their sentences (though remand prisoners, unconvicted prisoners and civil prisoners can vote if they are on the electoral register)
. anyone found guilty within the previous five years of corrupt or illegal practices in connection with an election

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/who-is-eligible-to-vote-at-a-uk-general-election

Nothing there to disqualify Mr. Bond from voting in an election.

[Sarmatian]

Nothing there to disqualify Mr. Bond from voting in an election.

Apart from him being fictional, of course.

I want to know how would Robin Hood vote, though. And especially Disney's fox version.

[Greyblades]

Pannonian I think he's referring to the idea that bond is a non-person, he's been wiped from every record by the Secret Service so legally he doesnt exist. So he wouldnt have citizenship.

[Beskar]

I want to know how would Robin Hood vote, though. And especially Disney's fox version.

He was against Taxation by the Feudal Lords (Rich) because it deprived the poor, but he returned the money to them as per a welfare state. This train of thought rules out the conservatives and UKIP.

Robinhood seemed to be more pro-liberty and choice, so I would probably place him within the camp of the Liberal Democrats as he seeks a fairer and freer society.

As for James Bond... I would probably place him more in the conservative camp currently. He likes a luxury lifestyle, he doesn't really care about the warfare of others, however, he does feel a strong patriotic duty and favours heavy police/security enforcement, even though the Conservatives are failing on this front. However, under this, he could also be an advocate of 'New Labour' as seen under Tony Blair who did favour war.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He was against Taxation by the Feudal Lords (Rich) because it deprived the poor, but he returned the money to them as per a welfare state. This train of thought rules out the conservatives and UKIP.

Robinhood seemed to be more pro-liberty and choice, so I would probably place him within the camp of the Liberal Democrats as he seeks a fairer and freer society.

As for James Bond... I would probably place him more in the conservative camp currently. He likes a luxury lifestyle, he doesn't really care about the warfare of others, however, he does feel a strong patriotic duty and favours heavy police/security enforcement, even though the Conservatives are failing on this front. However, under this, he could also be an advocate of 'New Labour' as seen under Tony Blair who did favour war.

Bond is a Tory, like the Queen.

Yes - the Queen is a Tory, but she'll support the current elected government, like Bond.

You are all shocked, yes?

As to Robin Hood - he'd vote for the English Democrats, the party of the English doomed never to be elected.

Hood doesn't represent disobedience to authority or re-distribution of wealth, he's an ethnic hero like Achilles or Cuculain, or King Arthur - or indeed King Alfred or Herewood the Wake. Unlike the others he's almost certainly fictional.

So, if there was an English version of Sien Fien he'd vote for them.

[Greyblades]

I love how innapropriate the thread title got after the tories won.

[Gilrandir]

I want to know how would Robin Hood vote, though. And especially Disney's fox version.

He wouldn't vote in parliamentary elections, but would run in local lections in Nottinghamshire - and would have a landslide victory.

[Brenus]

Well, that is if you believe his agent, the BBC and carefully crafted polls.

[InsaneApache]

I've joined the Labour party for £3 and I shall be voting for Corbyn. :creep:

http://labourlist.org/2015/07/where-is-jeremy-corbyns-support-coming-from/

[Beskar]

I joined Lib Dems for £1 to vote for Tim Farron. He would actually make a good British Prime-Minister.

Would be good if Labour shot themselves in the foot, and everyone realising the big difference Lib dems made in the coalition and have the votes swing their way.

[InsaneApache]

I joined Lib Dems to vote for Tim Farron. He would actually make a good British Prime-Minister.

:laugh4:

Not as good as Corbyn though....

I love the fact that the Lib-Dems have a Baron as equalities minister. Surreal doesn't even cover it!

[Beskar]

I love the fact that the Lib-Dems have a Baron as equalities minister. Surreal doesn't even cover it!

https://i.imgur.com/gDhJsmj.jpg

She was appointed in 2010. Also considering....
1) She is not white british
2) Not Christian (Muslim)
3) Pro-LBGT Rights
4) History of working in Equality initiatives.

It was a better choice than David Cameron's last two White British Christian anti-LBGT pickings with no prior history or experience in equality initiatives to be equalities minister.

[Greyblades]

Why should it matter if a candidate isn't white or christian?