Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shades]

Bwahaahaha, only 3 parties?!? 

We've got 61!

We have more than 3 parties, it's just that only 3 get significant votes and only 2 ever win.

I should point out that of your 61 parties only 4 get significant votes. (which is still better than us)

[Siquo]

Ah, but even with those 4, the oppositions size is not trivial.

Pretty:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Fun fact: the orange slice on the far left? That's the Animal-Rights party. Yeah.

I really don't get the need to do "strategic voting", where you vote for something different than you normally would have, just to mess with the people you really disagree with. It undermines the whole idea of democracy, as far as I'm concerned. I would refuse to do it on principle, but would end up with the people I disagree with the most as my government, so it's not realistic.

[Shades]

I really don't get the need to do "strategic voting", where you vote for something different than you normally would have, just to mess with the people you really disagree with. It undermines the whole idea of democracy, as far as I'm concerned. I would refuse to do it on principle, but would end up with the people I disagree with the most as my government, so it's not realistic.

I would generally agree with you, but unfortunately we have two major parties of which one will get a majority and neither are any good. I would much prefer to vote for who I think would do the best job but as it stands parties that wouldn't be my first choice are still better than the parties likely to win.

It's not a good system and I hate doing it, but frankly it's either that or leave the country.

[Siquo]

Yeah, and the winning party probably won't be inclined to change the system that made them win in the first place... 

[Pathos]

Pathos, you're either a troll or have very little idea what you're talking about.

What he's referring to is how, after the UK victory in the Falkland Islands war against Argentina, Prime Minister Thatcher immediately called for an election while approval ratings were high, because the Prime Minister is allowed to do that. And hell, if you're allowed to, why not do it?

Pretty much. The Falkland Islands are absolutely useless for... Everything. Even the oil that's there is pretty much unreachable for VARIOUS reasons.

And, yet, Thatcher had us go to war for it and, due to the fact we won, stirred national pride and pride in the Tory government and so we got another four years of her fucking over the country.

Unless you're referring to the fact that it's impossible to displace a party in control. When Brown got into power, there should have been a bi-election. Hell, Labour might've won. But, no, instead we got stuck with a guy who wasn't actually voted in and we might actually have the Tories win the next election.

Another example is a local MP ( Croxteth ) who started off Labour and then switched to Independent shortly after getting voted in. Despite protests, no bi-election.

So, do tell what you were talking about?

[de5me7]

i would say theres less merit in strategic i must vote labour to stop tories getting in, in this election. Get a majority the tories need a landslide. Labour still hold alot of seats from 1997 that the tories have to take. The exception is if you live in a stratgically important swing constitutency where there is a strong tory candidate.

My issue with labour is that they have no vision, their recent policies; digital economy bill, bailing out banks, cuting university funding are all jerk reactions to issues rather than thought through ideas. Fine save monies in the universitys but young peoples unemployment is at record high what else do you expect us to do? Deal with internet piracy, but is giving big companies the right to attack anyone outside of court and allowng the government to close websites really going to do that? Also labour dont think humans have rights - as shown in theiir spending on ID cards, bombs etc. And their chuck money and target setting approaches dont really work.

THe tories are trying to create a new image for them selves but the good old tories point of view is still in ther policies. Traditionally the tories have represented the landed gentry and wealthier parts of the UK. IN their manifesto is a tax break for those earning over 2mill. Interesting DC side steped this when attacked on it in the debate. The tory cabinet is also largly made up of private school boys who claim to understand the uk public by makeing statements such as "we wont tax hard working people". How the hell do u measure hard work and tax by it. What this really means is we think if you work hard you must earn over 80k per year so we wont tax you.

The libdems big problem is most people eiother dont know or care who they are and dont think theyre the big boys that can do the job. They have the most to gain from public debates because of this. i think the libs are probably the most trust worthy and i favour their most socialist policies, however i live in an area where the tories have held a majority of 10000 for the past 30 years so my vote doenst really count ofr anything.

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

All politicians are a load of utter wankers.
I will vote lib dem because although they are useless, so are the other parties and they haven't had a go at bollocksing up the country for almost a century.

[Aqizzar]

So, knowing absolutely nothing about the United Kingdom or its political culture, I was intrigued to see the U.K. Prime Minister election in the news today.  Apparently, this is the first time that the three party candidates have appeared for a nationally televised debate.

Welcome the 1960's Britain, glad you could make it.  Roger Ailes and George Soros will be along shortly to fuck the whole thing up for you.

Forgive my ignorance, but I love learning about how other countries govern themselves.  Isn't the Prime Minister elected by the Parliament itself?  I would think that would make public appearance and scrutiny kind of pointless when he has nothing to do with the popular vote.  Which I suppose is why this is the first time anyone has bothered.

[Akigagak]

No, the Prime Minister is voted for by the public. The candidates for the position are chosen from their respective parties, which is about as much control parliament has on who gets in.

@ Pathos: Sorry, I meant to cut out your last line. There's plenty of stuff you can do to change things, if you want to. Peaceful protests are generally the most successful, so fill out petitions, organise rallies (that's the main reason for woman's rights, gay rights, the hunting ban, etc getting through.) Sure, they don't have to actually do it, but if they can be fired for not following the will of the people.

[Nilocy]

Nah, we vote in parites on the basis of their manifestos and shizz. And the prime minister is just the leader of said party.

Anyway, I actually think that TV debate really made a difference. People are seeing the Lib Dems and what they stand for now (all over todays news papers, not to mention twitter and facebook exploding with "Support Lib dem" pages).

Pathos I trust your going to end up voting (if you can) lib dems, they're pretty much sorting out that issue with firing of MP's (by vote ofcourse). Which will solve one problem and make things a fuckload better. 1) MP's will have to do a good job or face being fired. 2) You can then vote out your MP's in power.

[Leafsnail]

Technically, yes, the Prime Minister is elected by their party, not us.  In practise, though, we elect the party, so we elect the party leader.  The Prime Minister can change without a general election, but doing this excessively and without public support isn't going to help your election chances.

[Huesoo]

Im going to vote BNP.

[Nilocy]

Im going to vote BNP.

Everyones entitled to their own opinion, your just... wait... GTFO.

[Huesoo]

Im going to vote BNP.

Everyones entitled to their own opinion, your just... wait... GTFO.

Sorry Englands full.

[Leafsnail]

Quite frankly, our economy would collapse without Polish immigrants.  They tend to do jobs noone else wants.