British Election: peaceful revolution

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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/...91/101/c28.gif

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.

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by therother

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

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.

Quote:

---

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?

yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Attachment 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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

yay riots, democracy remains tricky for some

---

Police arrest 15 in anti-austerity protest in London

Quote:

---

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/med...27130871-1.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.

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.

Fragony, I was agreeing with you.

Sorry it's just a rare sight ;)

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i1283.photobucket.com/albums...psq9mnqncf.png

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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

---

...What are her politics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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. 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.

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

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.

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

1. Social Media failed us.
2. The media were against us.
3. Shy Tories.

The real reason: An albatross named Blair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

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

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Replace Turkey with Argentina and you will get them as riled up as you want them to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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).

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i1283.photobucket.com/albums...psq9mnqncf.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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

---

That we are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

That we are.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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

---

The US elects bigger nutjobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The US elects bigger nutjobs.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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.

Cameron cracking down on those that threaten British values.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kagemusha

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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...psm7dg3z6e.jpg
https://i1283.photobucket.com/albums...psg1v80ssb.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

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

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........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

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!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Though ACIN may disparage Scottish separatist efforts,

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

I'm sorry.

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.