UK Politics Discussion

[dusqi]

I can't imagine Cleggy and the Lib Dems winning. I really can't.

 

Some of their policies are good, some ok, but those policies just can't be fulfilled, especially in this economic climate. Some of their policies are literally too good to be true, and simply aren't going to happen even if he gets in.

 

^My opinion^

 

 

Well, Labour and the Tories are going to do their best to take the policies apart over the next few weeks, so I recommend that you follow the debate and see if they succeed. It's worth noting that the Lib Dem manifesto is the only one to cost up their policies, and the only one that doesn't rely on "efficiencies" to pay for things.

 

This comedy picture also has a serious point:

 

[Danqazmlp]

I can't imagine Cleggy and the Lib Dems winning. I really can't.

 

Some of their policies are good, some ok, but those policies just can't be fulfilled, especially in this economic climate. Some of their policies are literally too good to be true, and simply aren't going to happen even if he gets in.

 

^My opinion^

 

 

Well, Labour and the Tories are going to do their best to take the policies apart over the next few weeks, so I recommend that you follow the debate and see if they succeed. It's worth noting that the Lib Dem manifesto is the only one to cost up their policies, and the only one that doesn't rely on "efficiencies" to pay for things.

 

This comedy picture also has a serious point:

 

 

 

 

That's one thing that confuses me about our government. People can get promoted into positions that cover totally different areas than what they are qualified to do. It's like re-training for a job in the army after you have been a doctor for 6 months, then expecting to become a teacher in another 6 months. Its absurd.

[The Dark Lord]

I assumed that most people hated Brown because of all of the negative comments about him that I have read (reason why people are voting for BNP and all that jazz).

 

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with British politics, but is the United Kingdom actually a democracy? I'm not talking about the modern incorrect usage of the term... I'm talking about the people literally voting on the legislation as opposed to elected representatives doing it for the populace (like the United States). I know quite a bit about British history, but I just wanted to clarify something; I assume it is the latter.

[dusqi]

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with British politics, but is the United Kingdom actually a democracy? I'm not talking about the modern incorrect usage of the term... I'm talking about the people literally voting on the legislation as opposed to elected representatives doing it for the populace (like the United States). I know quite a bit about British history, but I just wanted to clarify something; I assume it is the latter.

 

Yes, every area ("constituency") votes a (local?) representative - their Member of Parliament (MP). The MP goes to London and votes in legislation to (apparently) represent their constituency (most vote along party lines).

[The Dark Lord]

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with British politics, but is the United Kingdom actually a democracy? I'm not talking about the modern incorrect usage of the term... I'm talking about the people literally voting on the legislation as opposed to elected representatives doing it for the populace (like the United States). I know quite a bit about British history, but I just wanted to clarify something; I assume it is the latter.

 

Yes, every area ("constituency") votes a (local?) representative - their Member of Parliament (MP). The MP goes to London and votes in legislation to (apparently) represent their constituency (most vote along party lines).

 

It sounds a lot like our republican system, then. We elect senators and representatives from our constituent states. They then promise to represent our state, but they usually vote along party lines.

[Giordano]

That's one thing that confuses me about our government. People can get promoted into positions that cover totally different areas than what they are qualified to do. It's like re-training for a job in the army after you have been a doctor for 6 months, then expecting to become a teacher in another 6 months. Its absurd.

That's the thing about democracy. Anybody can "become chief executive". Uneducated farmer Billy Ol' Joe can become the Governor if support was strong enough. The idea was the people will pick the strongest canidate for the office. Tough economic times, pick an economist. Middle of war? Pick a general.

 

Though the introduction of parties and the voter's stupid separation-through-parties ruined this part of democracy.

[Sy_Accursed]

That's one thing that confuses me about our government. People can get promoted into positions that cover totally different areas than what they are qualified to do. It's like re-training for a job in the army after you have been a doctor for 6 months, then expecting to become a teacher in another 6 months. Its absurd.

That's the thing about democracy. Anybody can "become chief executive". Uneducated farmer Billy Ol' Joe can become the Governor if support was strong enough. The idea was the people will pick the strongest canidate for the office. Tough economic times, pick an economist. Middle of war? Pick a general.

 

Though the introduction of parties and the voter's stupid separation-through-parties ruined this part of democracy.

 

 

You reply in no way relates to what Danqa said.

 

Your point: Anyone can techincally be elected

Danqa's point : Its absurd that someone who has years of experience with say foreign affairs and is trained in it can suddenly be "promoted" or "reshuffled" to be head of something they have no experience off like Finance or Education

[Giordano]

That's one thing that confuses me about our government. People can get promoted into positions that cover totally different areas than what they are qualified to do. It's like re-training for a job in the army after you have been a doctor for 6 months, then expecting to become a teacher in another 6 months. Its absurd.

That's the thing about democracy. Anybody can "become chief executive". Uneducated farmer Billy Ol' Joe can become the Governor if support was strong enough. The idea was the people will pick the strongest canidate for the office. Tough economic times, pick an economist. Middle of war? Pick a general.

 

Though the introduction of parties and the voter's stupid separation-through-parties ruined this part of democracy.

 

 

You reply in no way relates to what Danqa said.

 

Your point: Anyone can techincally be elected

Danqa's point : Its absurd that someone who has years of experience with say foreign affairs and is trained in it can suddenly be "promoted" or "reshuffled" to be head of something they have no experience off like Finance or Education

Because there are no "technical" rules that prohibits you on doing that. Add in the factors of party "loyalty" candidates are unfortunately picked inaccurately. I was just reaffirming the "it's absurb" part I don't know where the hell you come off as thinking it's important to make note of this.

[Babyshambles]

Clegg for PM.

[Danqazmlp]

In one of the papers today they were trying to degrade Clegg. The best thing they could come up with? That he needed some coaching for the big debate... Oh no! Needing some help debating with two of the countries leading politicians on national TV, such a crime :unsure:

[dusqi]

In one of the papers today they were trying to degrade Clegg. The best thing they could come up with? That he needed some coaching for the big debate... Oh no! Needing some help debating with two of the countries leading politicians on national TV, such a crime :unsure:

 

It's amazingly ironic too:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8561683.stm

 

Labour and the Conservatives have both hired former aides to US President Barack Obama to help them prepare for the prime ministerial debates that get under way on Thursday evening.

 

The Conservatives have signed up a Washington-based political consultancy, Squier, Knapp, Dunn Communications, which also counts New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg among its clients.

 

Senior partners Anita Dunn, who advised Barack Obama before his presidential campaign and was communications director at the White House until last year, and Bill Knapp, a former Obama and Clinton adviser, have been coaching Conservative leader David Cameron in how to get the better of his opponents for the past month.

 

Gordon Brown has also been undergoing intensive preparation, aided by Obama's former polling chief Joel Benenson, who was on the team that helped the US president prepare for his 2008 campaign debates, and David Axelrod, Obama's chief campaign consultant.

 

[...]

 

Unlike the two larger parties, the Lib Dems have not retained the services of an expensive US-based political consultancy to coach their man, although they stress they have "been speaking to people with experience of televised debates".

 

The more desperate the newspapers get, the more obvious their agenda becomes, and the more people get annoyed by their deceit.

[Jaziek]

The sky news debate was asbsolute trash. You could see the Murdoch bias shining through from the get go.

[dusqi]

The sky news debate was asbsolute trash. You could see the Murdoch bias shining through from the get go.

 

I did laugh in a horribly cynical way when Cameron told a joke, and the camera switched to a couple of audience members in suits laughing their heads off, but when Brown was talking, the camera switched to an extended shot of someone in the audience yawning.

 

They also seemed to take a good number of camera shots from behind Clegg when he was talking. But then, since a media commentator said that he looks hot, perhaps showing his [wagon] was a compliment? ;)

 

 

Camera shots are subjective, but the most obvious bias was when Adam Boulton brought up a Telegraph headline just before Nick was about to speak. He didn't do that with any of the other leaders. There have been complaints about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/23/nick-clegg-ofcom-sky-debate

 

 

Edit: Actually, I just saw some articles about a camera shot of Gordon Brown's notes. The papers make a big deal about how Gordon's jokes were prepared in advance, but honestly all leaders' jokes and slogans are. The big issue here is that this camera shot shouldn't have been made available - it didn't happen in the ITV debates. Sky has shown itself to be too unprofessional to be involved in these important occasions in future.

[The Dark Lord]

The sky news debate was asbsolute trash. You could see the Murdoch bias shining through from the get go.

 

I did laugh in a horribly cynical way when Cameron told a joke, and the camera switched to a couple of audience members in suits laughing their heads off, but when Brown was talking, the camera switched to an extended shot of someone in the audience yawning.

 

They also seemed to take a good number of camera shots from behind Clegg when he was talking. But then, since a media commentator said that he looks hot, perhaps showing his [wagon] was a compliment? ;)

 

 

Camera shots are subjective, but the most obvious bias was when Adam Boulton brought up a Telegraph headline just before Nick was about to speak. He didn't do that with any of the other leaders. There have been complaints about this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/apr/23/nick-clegg-ofcom-sky-debate

 

 

Edit: Actually, I just saw some articles about a camera shot of Gordon Brown's notes. The papers make a big deal about how Gordon's jokes were prepared in advance, but honestly all leaders' jokes and slogans are. The big issue here is that this camera shot shouldn't have been made available - it didn't happen in the ITV debates. Sky has shown itself to be too unprofessional to be involved in these important occasions in future.

 

It seems like the British media is terribly biased against Nick Griffin. I personally believe that he's not that great and that his views, especially concerning "indigenous British" statements are bullcrap (since the English are different from the Celts), but it is terribly unfair to just blatantly degrade him. At least give him a fair chance.

 

Oh, and the public humiliation only serves to make his following stronger.

[1_man_army]

Sky has shown itself to be too unprofessional to be involved in these important occasions in future.

 

The problem is that they have leverage now. With them being involved this time they would cry foul if they were excluded in the future and they would use the newspapers to attack and claim that Labour (or whoever they're against at the time) are afraid of them and the hard questions. It's really a case of 'you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't."

[dusqi]

dbl post - apologies

[dusqi]

Sky has shown itself to be too unprofessional to be involved in these important occasions in future.

 

The problem is that they have leverage now. With them being involved this time they would cry foul if they were excluded in the future and they would use the newspapers to attack and claim that Labour (or whoever they're against at the time) are afraid of them and the hard questions. It's really a case of 'you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't."

 

There are other legitimate reasons to exclude them, apart from their bias and unprofessionalism. Low viewing figures, for example, which leaves out people who don't have digital TV.

 

The headlines would only be fleeting in the Murdoch newspapers, and we know that they'd write negative headlines about whoever they didn't like anyway.

 

 

 

 

 

It seems like the British media is terribly biased against Nick Griffin. I personally believe that he's not that great and that his views, especially concerning "indigenous British" statements are bullcrap (since the English are different from the Celts), but it is terribly unfair to just blatantly degrade him. At least give him a fair chance.

 

Oh, and the public humiliation only serves to make his following stronger.

 

Wiki says: "In the 2005 general election, the party received 0.7% of the vote but had no candidates elected to Parliament." The BNP gets far more than 0.7% of the news coverage though. Sure, a lot of it is bad, but one could argue that this reflects public opinion.

 

Compare this to the Lib Dems, who got 22.1% of the vote, but until these TV debates have had very little coverage at all in the newspapers.

[Sy_Accursed]

I don't see any reason why Nick Griffin or the BNP should get news coverage. They are a vile party filled with racist, homophobic, sexist etc etc policies. If anything such extremest hatred parties should be made illegal in my view.

[Will H]

I don't see any reason why Nick Griffin or the BNP should get news coverage. They are a vile party filled with racist, homophobic, sexist etc etc policies. If anything such extremest hatred parties should be made illegal in my view.

 

What a shining beacon of free speech and democracy you are. The BNP has only obtained as much of a following and power (Two seats in the European Parliament, one seat in the London Assembly, and many seats in many local councils) as it has because of that kind of attitude towards them, instead of taking on the issues they are raising. Congratulations.

[Sy_Accursed]

I don't see any reason why Nick Griffin or the BNP should get news coverage. They are a vile party filled with racist, homophobic, sexist etc etc policies. If anything such extremest hatred parties should be made illegal in my view.

 

What a shining beacon of free speech and democracy you are. The BNP has only obtained as much of a following and power (Two seats in the European Parliament, one seat in the London Assembly, and many seats in many local councils) as it has because of that kind of attitude towards them, instead of taking on the issues they are raising. Congratulations.

 

Actually they have gained support because lack of publicity means people have no source other than what they say to go by on them. And as the nazis did, unless you look properly and big through stuff they only present thier "nice" policies. That and they are foudned around the area of uk which still has a large portion of the sterotypical chavvy type hate immagrants etc. type.

 

I agree its better to highlight these flaws than ignore the party, but I still think they shuld be outlawed.

[Will H]

I don't see any reason why Nick Griffin or the BNP should get news coverage. They are a vile party filled with racist, homophobic, sexist etc etc policies. If anything such extremest hatred parties should be made illegal in my view.

 

What a shining beacon of free speech and democracy you are. The BNP has only obtained as much of a following and power (Two seats in the European Parliament, one seat in the London Assembly, and many seats in many local councils) as it has because of that kind of attitude towards them, instead of taking on the issues they are raising. Congratulations.

 

Actually they have gained support because lack of publicity means people have no source other than what they say to go by on them. And as the nazis did, unless you look properly and big through stuff they only present thier "nice" policies. That and they are foudned around the area of uk which still has a large portion of the sterotypical chavvy type hate immagrants etc. type.

 

I agree its better to highlight these flaws than ignore the party, but I still think they shuld be outlawed.

 

Nope. The vast majority of those who vote BNP are not racist, homophobic, or otherwise, even if people who run the party are. There would be huge amounts of unrest in the country if it were otherwise.

 

In short, they think that the rate of immigration is too fast, for cultural, social, and economic reasons. Not because of any racial motivation, but because there isn't enough jobs and resources to go around to integrate and support everyone, and everyone who comes here or lives here are losing out because of it. Many believe the major parties aren't dealing with it enough, so a BNP vote isn't for the people who run it, but for dissatisfaction that immigration isn't being dealt with. They're pretty much a single policy party like UKIP, so they almost definitely won't get a seat, but they will hold a number of votes which can be obtained by other larger parties that actually deal with the issues.

 

It irritates me so much when you see people who just act like parrots for what the media say. If people actually thought about things like this, we'd have far fewer problems in this country.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I'm going to make this clear. I'd vote Conservative if I was a few months older, and I would not have had voted BNP. I am merely sympathetic to the reasons why anyone would.

[OldJoe]

Banning BNP? So much for free speech.

People seem to forget, that no matter what country in Europe you look at, in the last couple of years, immigration-restrictive parties have gained a load of votes. Should you ban what the people think? Perhaps if the major parties would deal with the issues that these parties raise, people wouldn't vote for the smaller ones and they'd be gone in an instance (more or less). But that will not happen since most major parties are pretty PC.

[The Dark Lord]

If you ban the BNP as a party, then you throw freedom of speech out of the window. I'd much rather have a bigoted party that's nonviolent than destroy freedom of speech. :roll:

[Sy_Accursed]

Free Speech doesn't exist in full anyway. Its all mediated in various ways via laws, regulations, public acceptability etc etc etc.

 

I know immigration is an issue, but just because the BNP offers policy on it in no way justifies their sexist, homophobic, racist policies. Most of which are technically illegal since they made them laws that say its illegal to insight hatred.

[l0l0lpur34]

the conservatives basically want to slash spending on public services to be able to make tax cuts for the rich to help "Dave's" mates, and at the same time send us back into recession and ruin the lives of people who weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouth by making them lose their jobs. I'm not sure who I'll vote for, I live in a very safe labour seat so it probably won't make a difference anyway due to our anti-democratic electoral system.