Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
i'd be happy to have that referendum, and i'd be happy to see the Con's campaign against PR.
if PR did win and was adopted then I foresee a swift disintegration of the UK as the english would be livid they never got a decisively right-wing government again. england is significantly more right-wing than the country as a whole.
i like FPTP because it is decisive, it give power and mandate to make change, and it allows punishment of failed change.
lol, and what reason would you supply for labours reason for wishing to keep FPTP? roflmao!
Last edited by Furunculus; 05-09-2010 at 10:09.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
"The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney
I'd agree with you, which is why I find it silly that the party seems to be in collective hysteria at the very thought. It would be good for the country to form a stable Conservative administration with the Liberals, on the basis of holding a referendum on electoral reform in two years - with the Tories campaigning against. I think they could make a very solid case for FPTP and it would have a renewed legitimacy if won at a referendum. I'm not a fan of referenda in most cases, but I have said that both on Europe and Electoral reform, such an approach is legitimate and each side should persuade their position to the voters for legitimacy.
I don't agree that there would be anything like a disintegration of the UK if electoral reform is adopted. The British are far too mature a democracy, and if it is a Con-Lib partnership that ushers in such a change, it shows that my earlier contention of a progressive monopoly is decisively wrong. Your theory of the Liberals being the counterweight, and one that swings between right and left depending on the electorate's desire to control excess, would be further proven correct even in coalitions. This is the moment where the Liberals can show themselves to be a real party, and one that can exist in partnership with either main wing.
Anyway, there's no such thing as a livid Englishman. His lip may tremble with disdain from time to time, but revolt? Sir, are you French?![]()
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
Well, there is certainly the argument that preferring indivdual responsibility can be described as self-serving whereas one therefore supposes state rule for the collective is not. Not an argument that I would embrace, but there we are.
I suppose therefore we should be grateful that despite his comprehensive rejection by the voters, Brown hanging on down to the cuticles is an act of self-sacrifice that will save us all. May God Bless him, and the little pinky by which he clings.![]()
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
the difference between me and the tories is that I am right-wing first and tory as a result whereas they are tory-first and right-wing as their logical allegience. thus the difference between between me myself and them on PR, they would never get to have a tory majority again, whereas I would get right-wing governments frequently. still, that doesn't change the fact that I believe PR to be a lesser form of governance and would be perfectly happy to keep FPTP.
it would certainly lead to a far more rapid separation of powers between england and its satellites. the liberals do have the potential to be a serious party for the progressive cause, and one without all the chippy class-warfare nonsense of labour, and four years as a coalition government would force the lib-dems to seriously assess their need to represent a useful majority of the electorate, and thus ditch their loonier policies. i would welcome that, though i would have preferred they achieved the same end by displacing labour in the popular vote and spending five years as a serious opposition.
yes, i am sure it will be a more civilised affair than across the water in france, but the resentment in england over the west lothian question is a real and growing thing, and it would become moreso if PR led to an even greater dominance of english affairs by progressive politics.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Universal election reform = that which benefits my party to the detriment of my opponents.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." *Jim Elliot*
This is going to get confusing, especially when people are calling both STV and Party Lists as PR. Party Lists is a terrible system, on the otherhand, STV is a good system. But me and Furunculus agree on something again, apparently according to these surveys, I am a raging socialist just because I don't think we should discriminate against people with different colour skin, or should be exploited by those with power. I have to admit, makes me wonder what boxes you have to tick to be a right-wing on many of the surveys.
I am all far kicking out the quango's and brining through the regional government, and devolving power from Westminister. This makes the day-to-day in London ran by London, day-to-day in York ran by York, etc. Leave the national issues to the national parliament, aka, Westminister.it would certainly lead to a far more rapid separation of powers between england and its satellites. the liberals do have the potential to be a serious party for the progressive cause, and one without all the chippy class-warfare nonsense of labour, and four years as a coalition government would force the lib-dems to seriously assess their need to represent a useful majority of the electorate, and thus ditch their loonier policies. i would welcome that, though i would have preferred they achieved the same end by displacing labour in the popular vote and spending five years as a serious opposition.
yes, i am sure it will be a more civilised affair than across the water in france, but the resentment in england over the west lothian question is a real and growing thing, and it would become moreso if PR led to an even greater dominance of english affairs by progressive politics.
I would also like to see a scrapping of the divides between Scotland/Wales/etc. The national government is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not the countries of England, Scotland, Wales, all seperately.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Also, this isn't me, I swear it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...nd/8670022.stm
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
at what point were right-wing parties for discrimation of people of differnt colour?
the tories never have been, and UKIP aren't to my knowledge advocating that either?
i am absolutely discrimination in favour of nationality; i.e. i encourage a british government that considers the welfare of ITS citizens first, and works to achieve the British national interest.
this means that if a significant minority of the population feel adversely affected by uncontrolled immigration (as has been the case from 1997 to 2007) then it is the governments job to restablish control to ameliorate the impact of immigration. it's what labour was doing (belatedly) and it is what the tory's were proposing.
this means looking to maximise Britain's influence in world affairs, which is what labour are considering doing (with trident and the Contributory/Global Guardian doctrine), and what the tory's are considering doing (with trident and the Strategic Raiding doctrine), but their is no indication that the lib-dems see their priorities here.
if this makes me 'racist' or 'ultra-nationalist' in the eyes of some then so be it, i quite frankly view their ideas as even more ridiculous (transnational progressivism).
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
I'm sorry, perhaps i am not being clear; I dislike PR even more than STV for exactly that reason. The greatest advantage for FPTP is that is almost completely excludes loons, and when they do get in it is a real sign that the main parties are losing the popular mandate.
Well, that's Patriachalism for you, isn't it? Still Labour, has the opposite opinion of both issues. So they are just as bad!
This is why I loathe Labour, they personify the State and then claim to serve it.
I think the great issue is that England is politically different, but the lack of an analogous parliament prevents that from being expressed. Labour only have a hope of forming a government because of their Scottish and Welsh strongholds; that is a serious problem for our democracy.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Well, the far-right definitely are. However, I never said they were, I simply said that putting on these surveys as advocating discrimination or exploitation makes you some raving far-left socialist anarchist, since that is basically what I tick. Which I then said "I wonder what you have to put, to be the right-wing".
I agree with putting the citizens of an area before outsiders, especially on a ecological sustainability point of view. Britain is far beyond that point, as to where we are dependent on other nations in order to get our fix. One of the reasons I am an advocate of Europe is because Europe together is ecologically sustainable. While some people are saying about capping immigration, admittedly, we are at the point we should seriously consider a two-child policy and no more. If you want more kids, you have no government assistance inregards to them. (aka, get the snip,etc)i am absolutely discrimination in favour of nationality; i.e. i encourage a british government that considers the welfare of ITS citizens first, and works to achieve the British national interest.
this means that if a significant minority of the population feel adversely affected by uncontrolled immigration (as has been the case from 1997 to 2007) then it is the governments job to restablish control to ameliorate the impact of immigration. it's what labour was doing (belatedly) and it is what the tory's were proposing.
this means looking to maximise Britain's influence in world affairs, which is what labour are considering doing (with trident and the Contributory/Global Guardian doctrine), and what the tory's are considering doing (with trident and the Strategic Raiding doctrine), but their is no indication that the lib-dems see their priorities here.
I wikipedia'd Transnational Progressivism. I expected to find something agreed with, but I actually don't agree with it. The only area I can say I actually agree with, is the destruction of the constructed socio-political states into a world government. For example:
This is where I disagree. I believe in concepts such as a International Language, for example, how English is the Lingua franca. Everyone should be taught this language as their primarily language (either it be English, or a constructed language), anything else is for something to do in their spare time. (like Welsh, not even the Welsh speak Welsh.)Change in institutional values: "the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented" within dominant social and political institutions.
However, some other ideas like gender gets tricky. All I have to say, have dealt followed by the values I hold, which other entities posses, like Secular Humanism. If two guys want to get funky in the bedroom, let them. It is up to them, not the government. I even extend this to marriage, as in, remove it from the government hands. If people want a religious ceramony for joining, let them go to a church, up to them. Same for civil unions, they are just a mindless waste of red-tape.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
We are 'Britain' we are not 'England'. National issues involve everyone, such as foriegn affairs amongst other things. Labour also has huge support inside London (strangely) and in the North. While I agree on regional issues such be addressed by regional representatives, hence why I keep advocating kicking out the quangos, so we can do just that.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
There have been recent studies that have debunked this myth, and shown that the difference between England and Scotland is negligable. On some of the more social rather than economic issues, Scotland was even a bit more to the right. I suspect that the Unionist half of Northern Ireland is at least as right-wing as England, if not quite a bit more.
Not so sure about Wales, since unlike Scotland, it has in the past managed to achieve actual Labour majorities. But even then, as with Scotland, I suspect the Labour support stems more from party identification than major ideological differences.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
The outcome is fascinating, that's for sure, especially factoring in the medium to longer term issues. Although I'm surprised I've not really heard much about them from the pundits and the media though. It's a shame, they all seem to be focusing on what will happen next week...
Anyway, concerning the Conservative predicament, it strikes me that David Cameron is in a weak position with his party, far too weak to be able to actually deliver wide-scale electoral reform or indeed any of the Liberal Democrat central issues. And if the Liberals allow the Conservatives to govern without getting major concessions on these issues (particularly with what seems a more generous offer from their more natural allies, Labour), it could well spell electoral suicide for them: whilst plenty of people didn't want to vote Clegg, get Brown, I imagine the number of people who voted for Nick Clegg but would be happy with Cameron is substantially smaller. Even if Clegg is able to persuade his MPs and executive committee to back a deal, it seems unlikely he could hold it together for long. After all, on the key policy issues Cameron outlined on Friday, the Tories actually have more in common with Labour...
Which is one reason I find this "strong, stable" government line from both Tories and the Liberals to be somewhat puzzling. A Tory-Liberal pact cannot last that long without Cameron compromising on issues the rest of the Tory party simply won't stomach. For all the talk of a great Cameron victory, I think his party know in reality it was not: with a very unpopular Labour PM, the economy in a very bad state (which they could personally pin on the former Chancellor), and with a general disaffection with Labour over issues such as the Iraq war, this was an ideal chance for the Tories to win a substantial majority with a 40%+ vote share. Cameron didn't even get 40% in England, and that it may well be that the Tories will never get a better opportunity to form a majority government. In getting only 36% of the votes, demonstrates that his previous large leads in the opinion polls turned out to be soft. The debates suggested that last month, and the election has confirmed it.
Another option raised, usually by Tories, is a minority Conservative government without any agreement with the Liberals. I can't see how this could succeed. Unlike the SNP in Scotland, which bar independence broadly agrees with most other parties on the major issues and is therefore able to government relatively successfully on an issue by issue basis, the Tories essentially have no natural allies in Parliament. If they were to attempt to put forward a legislative programme based on their manifesto, then it would in all likelihood be voted down by Labour and the Liberals, whose combined voting block exceeds the Tories. Even if the DUP's 8 MPs came to Cameron's aid, it would be likely that the SNP and other parties hostile to the Tories would rally to the Lib-Lab side. In which case the Queen would be forced to either ask Labour to form a coalition or call a new election. At least 52% voted for a centre-left agenda. 36% voted for a Conservative one. If the Tories attempt to form a minority government, knowing that it will be inherently unstable and be subject to a no-confidence motion at almost any time, without allowing a possible Lib-Lab coalition, then it would be difficult to see how such a government could be in "national interest" at this time of "crisis"?
Concerning reforming the electoral system, both the Labour and LD parties stood on a platform of reform (Labour for alternative vote, Liberals STV). They got more seats than the Tories and substantially more votes. If more seats and more votes equals a mandate… In addition, when directly asked the question about reforming the system, opinion polls put support for a change at over 50%. Which is why, I imagine, the Tories don’t want a referendum.
Playing around with the numbers, is the goal really 326 MPs, ie half plus one of the 650 total? What really matters is can the Government get more than the opposition on key votes. With Sinn Fein unlikely to sit in parliament (at least without a change of the oath), this means there will only be 645 voting MPs, or 623 for a majority. Tories have 307 (including the seat they will likely win at the end of the month), Labour have 258, LDs 57, DUP 8, SNP 6, PC 3, SDLP 3, Green 1, and Alliance 1. A Lib-Lab agreement would command, itself, 258+57+3 SDLP+1 Alliance= 619, or 4 short of a de facto majority but 12 more than the Tories. The question becomes, will the SNP or Plaid Cymru or the Green MP vote with the Tories? I think it's highly unlikely, just coming up to a Scottish Parliament election, that the SNP would risk voting with the Conservatives as they must know the almost visceral hatred the Tories still engender in Scotland. The SNP suffered electorally when they brought down the Labour government of Jim Callaghan in 1979, and that was before Margaret Thatcher essentially lost Scotland for the Tories for at least a generation, so the backlash could easily cost them the Scottish parliament.
I do think that Nick Clegg and David Cameron personally like each other and think they could genuinely work together, certainly better than they could with Gordon Brown. But unless Clegg and Cameron put on a dazzling display of political legerdemain that manages to blind their parties to the harsh political realities of a Tory-Lib deal, I'm thinking that the only viable solution is a short term Lib-Lab pact. They could plan to quickly reform the electoral system and implement their similar policies for dealing with the national debt, with a mind to an early election with the new voting system.
Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri -- Quintus Horatius Flaccus
History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by people who weren't there -- George Santayana
Now this annoys me. This is the kind of crap that the pro-Tory media have been spouting. It's nonsense on a number of levels.
a) The acting PM has to stay in place until the Queen invites someone to form a government. You can't just leave the country leaderless.
b) 1% less share of the vote than the previous election does not amount to a comprehensive rejection anywhere outside the editorial meetings of Murdoch newspapers.
The Tories don't want individual responsibility, they just don't want any impediment to leveraging power via their wealth.Well, there is certainly the argument that preferring indivdual responsibility can be described as self-serving whereas one therefore supposes state rule for the collective is not. Not an argument that I would embrace, but there we are.
"The republicans will draft your kids, poison the air and water, take away your social security and burn down black churches if elected." Gawain of Orkney
Well Brown can scarcely leave No. 10 just like that. He would hand over LibDem to the Cons, grossly undermine their bargaining power. As long as Brown/Clegg can threaten a leftwing coalition, Cameron can;t call all the shots on his own.
Such a pity Lab-LibDem-others are some ten seats short of a viable coalition. Not just to see them in government, but to threaten a real alternative to keep the Tories in check.
Actually, there is a tactic to Brown being in number 10, he is stopping David Cameron from just walking in and taking over. Hence, he is holding it for a Con-Lib pact or a Lab-Lib pact, which would weaken the Tories position.
However, I believe Gordon Brown has remarked on stepping down if a Lab-Lib pact does happen.
As some one put it "We want votes, not moats!"![]()
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
While you think in "areas" everyone else thinks in "Nations", theoretically homogenous groups of people bound together by shared values and culture. So your basic value judgement here is faulty. You have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as you believe it should be.
Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience. Using English as the "International Language" is totally impractical, because it's a national language; it would amount to cultural triunphalism. Any attempt to impose a standard language is (rightly) seen that way, Lingua Franca actually means "language of the Franks" i.e. Charlamanic Latin-French.This is where I disagree. I believe in concepts such as a International Language, for example, how English is the Lingua franca. Everyone should be taught this language as their primarily language (either it be English, or a constructed language), anything else is for something to do in their spare time. (like Welsh, not even the Welsh speak Welsh.)
That depends on how you define "we", Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are recognised as seperate cultural entities, they also have their own assemblies. England deserves the same recognition by default.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Believe me, the Welsh speak Welsh, they also swear in it; I can tell you that from personal experience.
Not down south around bridgend, newport and cardiff way. Meeting someone who speaks welsh is something of a novelty where I live, even the majority of my friends can say more in other langauges than Welsh. Maybe its different in mid wales and the north but the two places I have lived in the south have very very few welsh speakers, off the top of my head I now as many people fluent in polish as welsh (two incase your intrested) When I still went to school a girl came joined our year who could speak welsh and it was a novelty to everyone, outside of her there wasn't a single fluent person in my year.
Also less sure on this one, but im sure a fluent friend told me there are no swear words in welsh, you could construct an insulting sentence but theres no actual swear words... my memorys a little hazy there though...
In remembrance of our great Admin Tosa Inu, A tireless worker with the patience of a saint. As long as I live I will not forget you. Thank you for everything!
in mid-wales which is supposedly very welshy, i often come across the chippy-welsh types who will deliberately try to talk in welsh to make a point of excluding any english, but even they often cannot comfortably converse with their friends as easily as they could in english.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
news on reform:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...ot-Labour.html
Hung parliament: Cameron’s PR coup to wrong-foot Labour
The full extent of David Cameron's audacity is beginning to emerge.
Benedict Brogan
Published: 11:57PM BST 09 May 2010
He is offering to trade reform of the voting system for a two-year deal with Nick Clegg that would deliver economic and social change and, in particular, the painful cuts needed to reduce the deficit. Suddenly, it is the Conservatives who are the radicals.
Until now the Liberal Democrats looked to Labour to deliver "fair votes" – their catchphrase for replacing the existing first-past-the-post system with something that better matches the number of votes cast with the number of seats each party gets in the Commons. Tony Blair led them up the garden path before 1997, only to go back on his word once he was safely in No 10 with a thumping majority.
Now in a twist that is causing consternation among some Tories, it is Mr Cameron who is in a position to deliver what Labour could not: a new way of electing MPs, which might be just enough to persuade Mr Clegg to throw in his lot with the Conservatives. The power-sharing deal could make Mr Cameron prime minister within 48 hours.
Just as it took the Right-wing Likud Party in Israel to broker peace with Egypt, or the Tories to start peace talks with the IRA, so it looks as if Mr Cameron has bucked convention in an attempt to redefine British politics in his favour.
Insiders say his priority is to agree a formal deal, possibly even a coalition, with Mr Clegg that would secure Lib Dem agreement for Tory proposals to reform the education and welfare systems and, in particular, for immediate spending cuts.
In exchange he would agree to hold a referendum on the proposals for voting reform developed by a new commission of inquiry that would conclude during this Parliament.
The Lib Dem statement last night that any agreement would have "deficit reduction and a credible plan for economic recovery" at its heart was taken as encouragement that Mr Cameron's pitch was working, even if the country and, more importantly, the markets may have to wait a bit longer for the "stable government" all sides are promising.
Tonight he will address his parliamentary party, including the 106 newly elected MPs who find
themselves being consulted in a Commons drama before they have even acquired their passes to the building.
But what exactly is he asking them to endorse?
Some on the Right fear that he is going to water down his pledge to insist on repatriating powers from Brussels. Others are horrified by the idea of giving seats around the Cabinet table to the Liberal Democrats.
Many want assurances that he is not about to abandon the party’s long-standing opposition to proportional representation.
And there are some who regard the uncertain outcome of the election as a reason to air their grievances about the way the Tory campaign was run. They see this as their chance to hit back at the tightly knit circle around Mr Cameron.
They reject the leadership’s boast that he produced a historic achievement with the best gain in seats since 1931 and a swing on a par with Margaret Thatcher’s in 1979.
Instead they say the campaign in the marginals was a costly failure that produced patchy results; that Mr Cameron was wrong to agree to televised debates that gave Nick Clegg a momentary advantage; and that the party’s manifesto — in particular, the notion of a Big Society — was too confusing for voters. They point out that a 36 per cent share of the vote was scarcely better than what John Major achieved when the Tories were crushed in 1997.
More simply, many Tory MPs question why a deal has to be done with the Lib Dems at all. They argue that, despite the hype of the debates, the party lost seats and emerged even weaker. With Labour contaminated by failure and the continued presence of Gordon Brown, Mr Clegg is a kingmaker but with only one king to make.
Tory whips spent the weekend telephoning MPs to take soundings on voting reform. Mr Cameron called party grandees on Saturday night to assure them that he remained steadfastly opposed to any form of proportional representation. By offering backbenchers a free vote in the Commons on whether there should be a referendum, he knows nearly all of them will vote “no”, and may find enough anti-reform Labour MPs to form a blocking majority.
But senior sources speculate that he could eventually offer the Lib Dems a form of electoral reform based on the additional vote system (AV) or even the AV-plus devised by the Lib Dem peer Lord Jenkins – and rejected by Mr Blair – more than a decade ago. Both maintain the constituency link that Tories say is essential, and both require voters to express a second preference.
For the Tories this would kill off the UK Independence Party vote which cost them an estimated 21 seats last week – enough to give them a majority. Even far-Right Tories have spotted this opportunity.
Mr Cameron is focused on delivering what his party wants: power.
To that end he is prepared to deal in ways that some in his party find hard to swallow.
Officially, there has been no offer so far on electoral reform but he also wants certainty that his Lib Dem allies will vote with him in the Commons when it matters.
He wants to bind them in to the hard decisions ahead. To that end he is prepared to go much further than his party perhaps realises.
But he also recognises that he has been presented with a chance to recast the Conservatives as the party of the centre that is keeping pace with public demands — if not for the obscurities of PR, then for a new politics in which leaders act pragmatically in the national interest.
There are more negotiations to come. It may be that Mr Clegg is the one who will face greater difficulties in persuading his party to do a deal that requires them to share responsibility for the pain.
Labour has offered to ditch Gordon Brown in exchange for a coalition. In which case Mr Cameron will go it alone, knowing that when the next election comes, possibly this year, no one will be able to fault his willingness to try anything to deliver stable government.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
#Hillary4prism
BD:TW
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
Freedom necessarily involves risk. - Alan Watts
Whilst there is some constitutional robustness to your point of view, the reality is that Brown would be unable to form a government even with the Liberals unless assorted nationalists were bought by enormous transfers of spending to their provinces. Even then, such a coalition would be almost unsustainable. The Conservatives know how weak Clegg is in relation to threatening to go to Labour (a Government of Losers) and Brown's temper tantrum the other day directed at Clegg for daring to talk to the Tories, didn't really help his cause, I fear.
Losing a hundred seats counts as a fair rejection, methinks. Considering Blair's 2005 victory was based in the lowest share of the vote for a governing party, and the extraordinary gerrymandering of seats, and the fact the Brown has never had an endorsement from an election in his own party or the country, I think the legitimacy of any Brown administration is suspect at best.
Tragically, this is no longer the case. Look at that frightful Thatcher woman, a grocer's daughter for Pity's sake, going around giving the peasantry ownership of their own homes and reducing their tax burden that should be grinding them into submission.
Not at all what is expected, what.![]()
"If there is a sin against life, it consists not so much in despairing as in hoping for another life and in eluding the implacable grandeur of this one."
Albert Camus "Noces"
Last edited by rory_20_uk; 05-10-2010 at 11:52.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Yes, but you see, the thing is she was upwardly mobile, but in a bad way as she ended up in a party that oppressed the poor as she reduced the handouts available to them as the State knows what they want better than the individual does (occasionally the individual is wrong, of course).
Giving them their own homes reduces the number of homes that are available to be given out by the government, which are intrinically better as when owned by the government they are part of the Social Housing stock which can be used to help the Poor whereas ownership might stop them being poor, which is counterproductive...
Simples...
![]()
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Bollox - to quote the most useful Irish phrase I've ever learned.
Thatcher has destroyed the British lower classes. Income inequality in Britain is now back to the level it was in Dickens' time.
Social mobility is the lowest in Europe. Talent is no longer decisive for succes in Britain. Your parents' class is.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Bookmarks