Political Poll

[Surprise]

That's the illusion that Cameron is pushing through. The Big Society on the face of everything seems to be about creating a better culture for everybody in the long run without the government actually doing anything. If you read between the lines of the official document on "Building the Big Society," you will see that the government are doing very little with this, washing their hands clean of it and shipping it to the councils to deal with. This leads to my first problem. It seems that the Government are trying to push out jobs and processes which are costly and pointless to the council without raising their budget and instead cutting it. Hence, ultimately leading to the unlikely situation that the council will ever be able to help create this "society" as the funds are simply not available to hand out to the public. Secondly, it seems like this has no actual affect on anybody. Everything they seem to offer will end up in that typical bureaucracy situation where you call up inquiring and get shipped from department to department as nobody actually knows who or how to organise/authorise the setting up of said place/event. Thirdly, you talk about this "selfish" culture that modern society has entered which it has ultimately had. What I want to know is how exactly is one idea going to lead everybody out of it? In the modern climate times are hard and very few people have enough free time to spend with their families (and/or their self) so how does the Government expect everybody to suddenly set up all these groups and to foster this sense of togetherness when people are having to ultimately work longer hours everyday to tackle the increase in mortgage/food/rent/utility bills to simply life? In the previous 10 years of Labour rule when there was the money available to do this it could of potentially work but not in this current economic climate.

[Crocefisso]

Does anybody actually know what this "Big Society" actually stands for?

I'm not sure why people don't answer this question, I've got a pretty clear idea; The Big Society is the concept that everyone should be consciously considering and doing things that help the local community in general, instead of doing everything according to pure self-interest. It's a mindset.

 

Extreme examples are participating in volunteer projects to renovate dilapidated parks, removing unwanted graffiti or help run a public event, but it also includes smaller things like keeping hold of litter until you find a bin, being polite to people in public, having a tidy front garden, going to that local shop on the corner instead of going to a supermarket. Simply being a nice decent member of society, really.

 

So simply ethos which every "decent" person should already have in them? That's pretty ridiculous.

 

Why is it ridiculous?

 

Because the although concept is nice, it's pretty stupid to have as a government policy. I fully agree with cutting the deficit, but it can't go hand in hand with the Big Society because charities are being temporarily hindered by the cuts and many people lack the means to volunteer in the current climate. Once the deficit has been significantly reduced, then things like the Big Society and smaller government can actually be put into practice. Currently, the role of the central government is becoming larger - and rightly so when it has a nationwide deficit to deal with -, and it only makes sense to cut first and devolve power later. The Big Society is something that needs to be left for the devolution stage.

 

Going off topic but within my own rules, here's an amusing video of my favourite politician (Ken Clarke) and my least favourite man on earth (Peter Mandelson) bickering - pre general election - in a very funny manner. It's the first of 4, but I'll leave anyone interested to track down the rest on YouTube.

 

[das1330]

Fair enough then.

 

Question for American TIFers: Which Republican candidate does TIF like best?

 

Mitt Romney seems to be the most reasonable of the major candidates. Herman Cain was not too bad either, but given the current choices I would side with Romney.

[Crocefisso]

Fair enough then.

 

Question for American TIFers: Which Republican candidate does TIF like best?

 

Mitt Romney seems to be the most reasonable of the major candidates. Herman Cain was not too bad either, but given the current choices I would side with Romney.

 

Romney has absolutely no backbone; his policies are just based around what he expects people want to hear and little else. I don't think that such wishy-washy people have the capability to be proper, strong leaders on an international level.

 

I'll stick by Ron Paul as my preferred Republican candidate and President over Obama.

[Will H]

Does anybody actually know what this "Big Society" actually stands for?

I'm not sure why people don't answer this question, I've got a pretty clear idea; The Big Society is the concept that everyone should be consciously considering and doing things that help the local community in general, instead of doing everything according to pure self-interest. It's a mindset.

 

Extreme examples are participating in volunteer projects to renovate dilapidated parks, removing unwanted graffiti or help run a public event, but it also includes smaller things like keeping hold of litter until you find a bin, being polite to people in public, having a tidy front garden, going to that local shop on the corner instead of going to a supermarket. Simply being a nice decent member of society, really.

 

So simply ethos which every "decent" person should already have in them? That's pretty ridiculous.

 

Why is it ridiculous?

 

Because the although concept is nice, it's pretty stupid to have as a government policy. I fully agree with cutting the deficit, but it can't go hand in hand with the Big Society because charities are being temporarily hindered by the cuts and many people lack the means to volunteer in the current climate. Once the deficit has been significantly reduced, then things like the Big Society and smaller government can actually be put into practice. Currently, the role of the central government is becoming larger - and rightly so when it has a nationwide deficit to deal with -, and it only makes sense to cut first and devolve power later. The Big Society is something that needs to be left for the devolution stage.

 

I completely agree with you, I imagine it was something that was thought up before the financial crisis. It's one of those long-term hopes, not really a government policy. The priority right now is sorting out the deficit, any Tory will tell you that.

[Crocefisso]

Does anybody actually know what this "Big Society" actually stands for?

I'm not sure why people don't answer this question, I've got a pretty clear idea; The Big Society is the concept that everyone should be consciously considering and doing things that help the local community in general, instead of doing everything according to pure self-interest. It's a mindset.

 

Extreme examples are participating in volunteer projects to renovate dilapidated parks, removing unwanted graffiti or help run a public event, but it also includes smaller things like keeping hold of litter until you find a bin, being polite to people in public, having a tidy front garden, going to that local shop on the corner instead of going to a supermarket. Simply being a nice decent member of society, really.

 

So simply ethos which every "decent" person should already have in them? That's pretty ridiculous.

 

Why is it ridiculous?

 

Because the although concept is nice, it's pretty stupid to have as a government policy. I fully agree with cutting the deficit, but it can't go hand in hand with the Big Society because charities are being temporarily hindered by the cuts and many people lack the means to volunteer in the current climate. Once the deficit has been significantly reduced, then things like the Big Society and smaller government can actually be put into practice. Currently, the role of the central government is becoming larger - and rightly so when it has a nationwide deficit to deal with -, and it only makes sense to cut first and devolve power later. The Big Society is something that needs to be left for the devolution stage.

 

I completely agree with you, I imagine it was something that was thought up before the financial crisis. It's one of those long-term hopes, not really a government policy. The priority right now is sorting out the deficit, any Tory will tell you that.

 

Yup. Though the Cameron government isn't the most decisive, and just quite where to cut and how much, and what cost-effective reforms to make (which are much needed: British social services - NHS and all - swallow money better than any RS money sink) in order to achieve this end seems to be something they can't decide upon. This bombing campaign in Libya isn't going to help with cutting the deficit either; the cost has already exceeded the value of our national oil investments there (presumably the reason we decided to start bombing in the first place), and NATO's recent plan of bombing oil refineries is only going to cost us more.

 

Still, I'm glad we've got a government that has its priorities sorted and isn't wasting money or denying the need to cut the deficit.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not sure "swallowing money" is all that great a euphemism for "saving lives".

[Crocefisso]

I'm not sure "swallowing money" is all that great a euphemism for "saving lives".

 

The majority of NHS staff are bureaucrats and administrators who don't exactly save lives. Granted, the service needs these people, but when they outweight doctors and nurses, that's when alarm bells about exactly how the NHS is run should be ringing.

[Racheya]

There is probably SOME beurocracy that could be cut out of the NHS safely but considering their election promises regarding the NHS, they can't do much. And, I have to say, I would much rather a bit more money go into the NHS and be wasted than allow the risk that cuts may be made in wrong places and lives put at risk.

[Ginger_Warrior]

How about social services, who are already suffering from years of underfunding and consequently don't have enough staff in local government to cope. Are they "swallowing money"? Money presumably which they don't have.

[Range_This11]

Don't tell me my conscience won't be affected. It will. There is no evil that will be good for me. I'm sorry, you're not going to convince me of that.

That's just foolish, why would you want to do that when it can hurt others and yourself?

I don't understand how my not voting hurts anyone else in any way. And it is not foolish. The only candidates I have ever seriously considered voting for were Independents that would garner less than 5% of the popular vote. No matter how hard they try, the big fundraisers from the GOP and DFL are always going to win the popular vote. Hell, even Ron Paul got smart and is now running on the GOP ticket. I don't agree with what the GOP or DFL represent and I will not vote for them.

 

In my opinion, to vote for something you don't believe in seems a much more foolish endeavor than abstaining for clear and concise reasons. To quote Rush (yes, Rush) "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." My choice is to stay away from the sideshow that is the American political theater.

[Crocefisso]

How about social services, who are already suffering from years of underfunding and consequently don't have enough staff in local government to cope. Are they "swallowing money"? Money presumably which they don't have.

 

If they are indeed under-funded (though I've not seen any evidence, I won't deny it's a likely scenario), then there are three very simple reasons for this: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya. Admittedly, Cameron got us involved in Libya, but it is the least expensive by a country mile. Instead, we've got the "left wing", but somehow economically neolibera and foreign policy hawk, Mr Blair to thank for all this money thrown down the sink in nation building in Asia. Then there's Brown's extensive borrowing after the crash.

 

Any and all problems with funding are a matter of necessity caused by the shambles of a government that was Labour from 2001 to 2010; prior to 2001, I didn't think they were doing a bad job. I will admit that.

 

EDIT: From here on, all people who vote incorrectly will be named and shamed in the first post of this thread. Look out for your name there and recast your vote.

[Ginger_Warrior]

That's not the question I asked. You said social services were swallowing money better than any RS sink or something like that, yet you have no evidence for this, so am I and the rest of us to assume your political beliefs are formed essentially via assumptions and half-truths?

 

I agree we should never have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. I said that at the time, as did many Labour Party members and voters who marched in Hyde Park before the Iraq invasion began. What we're doing in Libya right now is frankly anyone's guess, but whatever it is, it's gone beyond the 90-day limit set by NATO.

[Crocefisso]

That's not the question I asked. You said social services were swallowing money better than any RS sink or something like that, yet you have no evidence for this, so am I and the rest of us to assume your political beliefs are formed essentially via assumptions and half-truths?

 

I agree we should never have gone to Iraq or Afghanistan. I said that at the time, as did many Labour Party members and voters who marched in Hyde Park before the Iraq invasion began. What we're doing in Libya right now is frankly anyone's guess, but whatever it is, it's gone beyond the 90-day limit set by NATO.

 

I was responding to the problem of underfunding that you mentioned, which was caused by excessive spending, that resulted in massive national debts, by Labour.

 

I think we all know how much money is going down the sink on NHS admin, benefits fraud, and other such things that have been caused by Labour's dual policy of extending social services and centralising the government. I don't think we need to go into detailed discussion about such common knowledge.

[Zierro]

In three years of having the ability, I have yet to vote. I can't bring myself to vote for a person that I do not completely agree with.

 

As much as Ron Paul seems to know what he's doing, the thought of him in office makes me a bit leery. I don't know if I trust his policies that much and I don't think that Congress will go along with a lot of them if any.

In my opinion, to vote for something you don't believe in seems a much more foolish endeavor than abstaining for clear and concise reasons. To quote Rush (yes, Rush) "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice." My choice is to stay away from the sideshow that is the American political theater.

 

Basically this. Sure, I have some pretty strong opinions on gun laws, economy, human rights, and such, but I've yet to see a single modern-day politician or party that connects with me. Maybe if George Washington were still alive.

 

No no no. The *reason* you vote for them is because they're the lesser of two evils. If you don't vote for Obama, then you have a greater chance of getting Bachmann, which is even worse. Someone is going to be elected regardless, so your conscience doesn't matter. An evil *will* be elected, but it's up to you to exercise your ability to choose which is better for you.

 

How will you know which is truly the greater evil until they had their shot in office? Maybe Bachmann might be perceived as the greater evil at the time because she is a nutcase, but maybe if Obama was reelected he would [bleep] America over well beyond her capabilities. The safest way out is to vote for nobody.

[Crocefisso]

How will you know which is truly the greater evil until they had their shot in office? Maybe Bachmann might be perceived as the greater evil at the time because she is a nutcase, but maybe if Obama was reelected he would [bleep] America over well beyond her capabilities. The safest way out is to vote for nobody.

 

The democratic system does have its flaws, but everyone heeding your proposal would be a disaster. The voting system would collapse, creating a power vacuum which would inevitably give rise to some sort of autocratic government. Just because nobody votes doesn't mean nobody would take power, in some way or another, and a government that doesn't have to sway an electorate is going to act with far less regard for the people.

 

Obviously, the western democratic system is not exactly on the verge of collapse. I'm just using a hyperbolic, hypothetical situation to try and illustrate what an awful idea not voting is. ;)

[Zierro]

The democratic system does have its flaws, but everyone heeding your proposal would be a disaster. The voting system would collapse, creating a power vacuum which would inevitably give rise to some sort of autocratic government.

 

Well still better than voting for a disaster. Besides, it always comes down to the two richest campaigners anyway. That type of 'democracy' is practically just an illusion to make people think they had their say-so in politics. If you are really that determined to make a difference, casting a single vote is perhaps one of the least effective ways of making a change.

 

Just because nobody votes doesn't mean nobody would take power, in some way or another, and a government that doesn't have to sway an electorate is going to act with far less regard for the people.

 

Obviously, the western democratic system is not exactly on the verge of collapse. I'm just using a hyperbolic, hypothetical situation to try and illustrate what an awful idea not voting is. ;)

 

My non-vote isn't for the purpose of fighting for some sort of anarchy. If someone was worth the walk to the nearest ballot, they would surely have my vote. I've yet to see any in this day and age though.

 

But enough about me. Let's get some of your opinions on the matter for more perspective. Would you rather swallow a giant douche or a turd sandwich? Think lesser evil.

[Crocefisso]

The incumbent Prime Minister of the UK - David Cameron, for whom I voted - has an ideology that is very close to my own. Just because he is the richest campaigner or whatever does not mean that he shouldn't lead the country. In the world, there will always be those who command and those who are commanded. But we can at least choose who commands us.

[Ginger_Warrior]

You know as well as anyone else that in the UK we don't vote directly for a Prime Minister...

[Surprise]

You know as well as anyone else that in the UK we don't vote directly for a Prime Minister...

 

I think he meant he voted conservatives for David Cameron.

[Crocefisso]

You know as well as anyone else that in the UK we don't vote directly for a Prime Minister...

 

Technically we don't, but we vote for our MP on the back of what the Prime Ministerial candidate is offering us. I've never seen or heard anything in terms of policy from my MP. The services the MPs offer via surgeries are virtually the same from party to party.

[magekillr]

Democratic in national elections under any circumstance (unless the Republican is more liberal than the Democrat, which almost never happens); sometimes Republican in local elections. For example, I'd vote for a Jon Huntsman over a Ben Nelson.

 

And sorry for any insults that people might take from this, but if after this debt ceiling hysteria you still haven't realized that Republicans are bat-[cabbage] insane, then you're an idiot. These people have no business being in power, ever. If you joined the Tea Party because you want to see lower taxes on millionaires and less regulation of business, then good; you're on solid ground. But if you joined because you want smaller government and a balanced budget, you made a grave mistake.

[Nomrombom]

Left wing Libertarian here, Democrat in the US. Pretty sure Obama will win the re-election due to morons like Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Donald Trump, etc. being the most popular on the Republican side.

 

Let me direct your attention to this site http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

 

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-5.12&soc=-2.26

 

And an example result (mine). Right near me would be Gandhi, The Dalai Lama, and Nelson Mandela :thumbup:

 

Edit: Just found this on the same site.

 

7. Who, commenting on the deaths of more than half a million children, said I think that this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it ?

Yasser Arafat

Madeleine Albright

Pandit Nehru

Ayotollah Kohmeini

 

Madeleine Albright, as US Ambassador to the United Nations, on the 60 Minutes TV programme, 12 May, 1996

She was responding to the finding of a United Nations FAO report that 567000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of sanctions. Eight months later, Bill Clinton appointed her Secretary of State.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Pretty much exactly where I am: http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.88&soc=-2.82

 

I think for the whole of the religious section I answered strongly disagree, spare one question, which I answered disagree.

[Hamtaro]

I completely agree with magekillr. [sarcasm]The letter next to a name on a ballot makes all the difference in the world. A man who has no ability to write bills or create laws is clearly responsible for ones not passed in congress and, as a result, clearly has full control over the economy. We should entirely blame this one man for everything bad that happened while he's in charge, but hold a double standard for someone with a different letter next to his name on the ballot. Even though there are no distinct differences between the two parties, one is clearly superior to the other. Inner city poor people and country poor people are clearly in different socio-economic classes, where one is more intelligent than the other, even though both lack any higher education; even though big businesses and the news media both lie out the ass for profits, one is clearly more evil than the other; those who vote for someone because of race are clearly less racist than those who don't vote for someone because of race; churches of the same faith who take different sides of the political scale are only good members of that faith if they agree with me and my interpretation of that religion; it's clearly worse when one side ignores science, but the other has no basic understanding of history from which to see "new" ideas they present are old ones that failed miserably before. Clearly the ®/(D) makes a ginormous difference. If you disagree with me, you're probably just an idiot so I don't care what you say, seeing as I'm probably smarter than you anyway and even though tea partiers and hippies are the same damn thing, but with opposite beliefs, one of them has been right about every social issue ever.[/condescending rollseyes face] No wait, overly political people who spout none-sense is just as bad and annoying on both sides.

 

I also find it funny that Bush's second term economic policies (tax cuts, bailing out the auto industry, extending the war) are virtually identical to Obama's presidential ones (extending the Bush tax cuts and then some by slashing social security taxes, bailing out the banks + Cash-for-Clunkers, extending the wars until literally today), but it's only bad if the guy I didn't vote for does it. This idea I'm about to say may come off as shocking to overly-political people, but in reality, it turns out that the president and congress aren't the same thing after all (shocking, I know), so we should blame both of those presidents for having to deal with some of the worst sessions of congress since the pre- and post-Civil War days. It kind of sucks for Obama and Bush to receive criticism (that in many cases happens to be unjustified) because there are children in congress playing the my-party-is-better-than-yours game (hmm, whom does that remind me of?). I do actually agree that the Republicans probably won't put out a decent candidate, though, and I'll most likely be voting to reelect the president.