zomgbbqftw
Banned
So a £20bn tax on food is in the interest of Britain's consumers, especially the working poor and poor. You know that essential for life stuff, food.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
So a £20bn tax on food is in the interest of Britain's consumers, especially the working poor and poor. You know that essential for life stuff, food.
Of course he wanted this situation. Tories have been taking a beating all term, fucking everything up left and right, and consistently proposing things that the public have ill will towards. This one is the opposite. For some silly reason the British public are anti EU (there's positives and negatives to everything) and this new move for the first time in a while, sees the PM move on something big that the public is largely in favour of. It's his scape goat and trump card.
CyclopsRock
Member
If his political problems can all be solved by offering a referendum, doesn't that suggest that there was a pretty big problem with people's sense that democracy was being served? Which is to say, if offering a referendum on the EU boosts his poll ratings a lot and whose absence single handedly caused a ton of people to switch their intended voting party to another, wouldn't you say he had a responsibility to act whether he wants to our bit, as it suggests some wider malaise?
kurtrussell
Banned
I'm curious as to why anybody of any political affiliation feels that asking the population whether they would like to remain part of a pact that directly affects them is a bad thing?
QuicheFontaine
Member
Why, that pesky British public might make the 'wrong' decision
That pesky British public is not nearly well informed enough on the subject matter, and is basing its decision largely on sensationalist media and propaganda.
QuicheFontaine
Member
What do you think about the Scottish Indepence referendum?
zomgbbqftw
Banned
Why because you disagree with the prevailing opinion they must be wrong?
That pesky thing called democracy, the EU hates it for this reason.
kurtrussell
Banned
News at 10: Left wing in telling the public what's best for them shocker!
Really? Just after we had a thread on fake EU news that people fell for? After what happened in the AV referendum? Do you dispute there's lots of misinformation out there and that it's peddled by mainstream news outlets?
grr, I bet those grey EU bureaucrats in their ivory towers are just jealous of our proud Englishness!
kurtrussell
Banned
So.... present both sides of the argument and let the public make up their own minds. I'm sure there'd be multiple debates both for and against in the event of a referendum and I think it's a lot less patronising to give people all the information and allow them to make a decision rather than taking the North Korean option and deciding on their behalf that they're not responsible enough to vote for the "right option".
You had access to both sides of the argument with the EU press regulation thing. You still fell for it and claimed it was an EU plan rather than just a report submitted to the EU.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=46790894#post46790894
Fact is, people like you need to be spoonfed over complex issues and I definitely would expect someone who claims the Guardian is the Daily Mail on the opposite side of the spectrum to give in to xenophobia and ignorance over this.
kurtrussell
Banned
You certainly seem to enjoy telling other people what's good for them. No wonder you're so anti-referendum. Also, just FYI, the quotes and source I gave about the EU thing came from the famously left/liberal Huff Post - take a look if you don't believe me. But yeah, what would "people like me" know?
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
This thread really became pretty right centered this past year. Did all my lefty brothers have their throats slit in the dead of night by the lizard people?
Managing to take all the heat off of the miserable place the UK feels to live in right now for a good ol' Euro bashing round is classic stuff really. Its like living through multiple editions of the Matrix.
Managing to take all the heat off of the miserable place the UK feels to live in right now for a good ol' Euro bashing round is classic stuff really. Its like living through multiple editions of the Matrix.
PJV3
Member
I'm about as left wing as they come and I will be happy to have a referendum. The EU is a bigger compromise for left wingers than it is for right wingers.
But I think we have much bigger problems to worry about at the moment. Cameron should have kept this announcement under his hat for 18 months. As for this idea that the tories give a toss about what the people think, really?
4 years of this divisive politics is going to do us no favours.
But I think we have much bigger problems to worry about at the moment. Cameron should have kept this announcement under his hat for 18 months. As for this idea that the tories give a toss about what the people think, really?
4 years of this divisive politics is going to do us no favours.
QuicheFontaine
Member
This really needs to stop being cited as an instance of the 'sheeple' being misled by the media. The AV referendum failed because AV is shit and no-one wants it. Simple as. The Lib Dems whizzed it down their leg by failing to get PR as an option.
PJV3
Member
Yep, another example of Tories giving people their say. Only when they can decide the options.
Stupid fucking Clegg.
Not to mention that there has been something of a backlash due to him announcing it 4 years ahead of time as well as the whole "only if we get re-elected" thing that has people considering it a bribe somewhat. Basically, nobody really wins here. Anyone who wants a referendum has to wait until another election and may be forced to vote against their wishes. The ones who don't will still have to wait in uncertainty for the next couple of years. We're heading for yet another hung parliament.
I dislike Miliband's recent appearances but he is right on why Cameron made this decision.
CHEEZMO
Obsidian fan
I noticed that too. Solidarity, comrade.
Psychotext
Member
I've given up on it all, we be fucked.
The government is full of crooks and the opposition are laughable.
The British public are not "anti EU," thats just paranoid delusion. There is a general sentiment that they are getting too big for their boots, and some of it is clearly corrupt and it needs sorting. Labour didn't help by winking and bending over everytime they came knocking for more money and power, they took it too far.
Once sorted I think the majority would vote to stay in.
The UK public has voted before you know, why should the EU be immune from a vote, when it was a complete clusterfuck months ago?
People will be voting Labour next election on the basis that they have opposed everything the government has proposed which has given people the impression they would have done none of the cutting this government has done which is bollocks, because they would have done at least 90% of it, they had to.
This thread is more central than anything.... Grounded in the common sense that our economy is in the shitter and we've no money to splash around to sort it, and the fact that the EU who itself is in the shitter and only months ago nearly imploded, really needs to have a think about its shit if its ever going to work.
No one denies that the EU needs reforming, but the the public image of the EU in the UK is formed a good bit by a policy of successive governments to put the blame on the EU for legislation the introduce that's not popular so they pass the buck. Issues like the prisoners vote and the European court of Human Rights, link it to the EU but don't mention that its older than the EU and Churchill helped set it up. This referendum could be a good thing if people get to here a balanced argument for yes/no with a lot of the bullshit such as the straight bananas is cast to the side, with some of the media I doubt it
QuicheFontaine
Member
CHEEZMO;46847115 said:
What's with all these comments? The discussion looks pretty even sided to me. There's pro-EU people and anti-EU people, and people in the middle.
I think it's because a few months ago it was totally the other way around, far too much "all torys are evils scum RAWR", it's just striking to see.
I think we all need to air our opinions and debate, not sulk and quit the thread when it's not a circle jerk of our own opinions being fed back at us (which it's clear some left leaning users have).
zomgbbqftw
Banned
The problem is that "LOLOLOL TORYSCUM" seems to be a winning argument for just about everything in this thread which puts off right wingers.
PJV3
Member
Its not that bad, getting heated is fine.
Well were not at the US level yet at least.
I mean often we on the left are dismissed as loonies or living in a dream world. And it gets a bit repetitive on both sides, especially if you have 4 yrs to talk about something.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
He made the announcement now because his party's in the shit. If merkel is listening it shockingly turns out the eton mess/call me dave may have actually pulled off a decent bit of statesmanship and added few bullet points to take into the next general election.
So we shouldn't get a vote on the basis we might have the wrong information..
What kind of dictatorship do you want? Every vote we have is based on conflicting opinion to the extreme, it's what a democracy is about.
CyclopsRock
Member
I think the left have a habbit of acting morally superior, as if they think that the virtues of their arguments are agreed by both sides, but the right want something else in spite of this. Last year this thread was far less balanced, I agree - I know because I was one of the few right wingers in here, and I don't remember people then saying things akin to "This thread is fast becoming a mouthpiece for the Daily mail, the sun and other Murdoch mouthpieces sickening" about the left (with other papers, obviously). It should be heated, and it'd be boring if it weren't, but it should be heated about the issues and the policy of the day, not ridiculous, useless and disrespectful ad-homs like that quoted above towards the people wanting to discuss the issues of the day.
And look at that, now I'm on my moral high horse. Look what you've all done.
Edit: I also think Dave's a fantastic statesman. He's genuinely good at international meetings in a similar way to how Blair was (and Brown and Major definitely weren't).
And look at that, now I'm on my moral high horse. Look what you've all done.
Edit: I also think Dave's a fantastic statesman. He's genuinely good at international meetings in a similar way to how Blair was (and Brown and Major definitely weren't).
Sir_Crocodile
Member
I still scratch my head as to why anyone would want PR.
First past the post would be perfect if boundry change was outside of the ability of parliment to meddle with - just look at the current round where the tories want because it would help them, the libdems don't because they're still sulking, and labour don't because it will damage them. They should all want it because it is good for democracy.
He can't if he really wants change at the EU, any reform will take almost the entire five years.
Every protectionist measure he wants scrapped will no doubt meet with huge opposition - france went to the frigging court of justice last year to stop MEP's from trying to save money(don't keel over in shock, MEP's only did it to save themselves travel time) by reducing the number of times they go to strasbourg.
I can only imagine how much they'll scream if we try to reform/stop paying for CAP.
First past the post would be perfect if boundry change was outside of the ability of parliment to meddle with - just look at the current round where the tories want because it would help them, the libdems don't because they're still sulking, and labour don't because it will damage them. They should all want it because it is good for democracy.
He can't if he really wants change at the EU, any reform will take almost the entire five years.
Every protectionist measure he wants scrapped will no doubt meet with huge opposition - france went to the frigging court of justice last year to stop MEP's from trying to save money(don't keel over in shock, MEP's only did it to save themselves travel time) by reducing the number of times they go to strasbourg.
I can only imagine how much they'll scream if we try to reform/stop paying for CAP.
PJV3
Member
First past the post is awful. You end up chasing a few floating voters in marginal seats which leads to parties offering the same old- same old.
Then combine that with a house of commons that is almost nothing more than a rubber stamp and you end up with the policy being made by a select few because lab/tory don't even listen to their parties.
Parliament should represent the views of as many people as possible, not just a few who swing elections.
Then combine that with a house of commons that is almost nothing more than a rubber stamp and you end up with the policy being made by a select few because lab/tory don't even listen to their parties.
Parliament should represent the views of as many people as possible, not just a few who swing elections.
Sir_Crocodile
Member
The alternative is that some constituencies don't actually get an MP that reflects their views though right?
PJV3
Member
Unless an MP wins more than 50% of the vote that happens anyway. And all those other votes of tax paying citizens equal nothing. Thatcher never got the majority to do what she wanted or Blair, yet they acted like britain was theirs to do as they wished.
No?
Every MP in AV is elected by a majority, though that majority may end up being comprised of first, second and nth preference votes.
The biggest lie told about AV was that it would bring MPs that nobody really wanted into power.
QuicheFontaine
Member
AV is a disaster of a system.
If I vote for candidate A (who gets 40%) and you vote for candidate B (who gets 30%), my guy should win.
The idea that we then have a second round (ugh!) of counting, in which all the people who voted for BNP, UKIP, Green party etc. but put your guy as the second choice have their votes added to candidate B's share is ridiculous. They already voted and their respective choices lost. Their second preferences, which may not amount to much more than a vague inclination (I mean, hey, why not fill in second, third etc preferences?) shouldn't be held as equal to my first preference. If they liked candidate B, they should've voted for them first.
And that's about as simply as I can put it. It should be one person, one vote. If you want to talk about PR, that's another matter. But even Nick Clegg called AV a "miserable little compromise".
Sir_Crocodile
Member
Who's talking about AV? I was discussing PR (the AMS type).
AV is garbage also but for different reasons
CyclopsRock
Member
I read a thing about an interesting voting system once.
You have ~650 constituencies like now. You vote like normal, for a local candidate, not a party. Instead of the winner being the one with a plurality or majority of votes, a random vote is pulled out of a (giant, one presumes) hat. This is the MP. In any given constituency, the chances of the person with the most votes getting made MP is statistically proportional to their voteshare. What this means, though, is that if the Green party (or UKIP or whoever) get 5% of the vote nationally but only 5% in any given constituency (except Brighton, ofc) there's an approximately 1 in 20 chance that they will win any given constituency. Over 650 seats, this will give them something close to proportional representation. Thus you get a roughly PR system with strong local constituencies and representatives. PERFECT.
You have ~650 constituencies like now. You vote like normal, for a local candidate, not a party. Instead of the winner being the one with a plurality or majority of votes, a random vote is pulled out of a (giant, one presumes) hat. This is the MP. In any given constituency, the chances of the person with the most votes getting made MP is statistically proportional to their voteshare. What this means, though, is that if the Green party (or UKIP or whoever) get 5% of the vote nationally but only 5% in any given constituency (except Brighton, ofc) there's an approximately 1 in 20 chance that they will win any given constituency. Over 650 seats, this will give them something close to proportional representation. Thus you get a roughly PR system with strong local constituencies and representatives. PERFECT.
Instead of me pointing out that I never said anthing at all about not having a vote I'll let you read it again and you can apologise after
CyclopsRock
Member
I suspect he was taking the same logical approach taken to referenda to that of voting.
anonymous_abc
Member
well in sensible PR systems you get strong local constituencies too without the "luck" bonus.
That doesn't sound like a disaster - that sounds pretty good at accurately and effectively allowing the basic fact that people have more than one political preference to not be forced to vote tactically.
Why should your "40% of the vote" candidate win when a majority haven't expressed support for him? If 30% of voters list my candidate as a first preference and 30% are happy for him to be a second candidate, them my candidate has more support than your candidate.
Tactical voting has distorted the voting landscape since nigh on we had universal suffrage, and it's our biggest democratic flaw.
AV probably was the best system for us - one MP per constituency; each MP elected by a majority; each citizen afforded the opportunity to not vote tactically with their first preference.
A large swathe of people don't vote for minor parties because they know they have no chance of winning and a vote for them is a vote for the existing lead party. After a few rounds of AV elections, you can bet that would have changed. It might have meant more fringe parties becoming mainstream, but that's a good thing when we're stuck with the lot we have.
QuicheFontaine
Member
You sure like bolding the word fact...
To answer your question, why should my candidate win? Because he got the most votes.
Fringe parties are fringe for a reason. If they had popular support people would vote for them. But anyway I've laid out my reasons for opposing AV: essentially I think that you get one vote and it has to get used up when you vote for someone. You shouldn't get endless bites of the cherry once that one vote is exhausted.
This is moot now anyway. We had the debate, 6.2 million said yes, 13 million people said no. That's a fairly comprehensive result.
PR was the much more popular option and I think there's a real argument to be had for it. Heck, I probably would've said yes to that if the implementation was right. Obviously it would be bad for the Tories though so Dave was never going to let that option get onto a referendum. And once again old punching-bag Clegg takes the blame.
Your candidate didn't get the support of the majority though. Who gives a fuck if he got the most first preference votes? The extreme of that is getting an MP elected on 2/nths of the electorate.
Any system that allows the majority to win is better than a system that doesn't.
AV recognised that voters don't have singular political categories, that politics is a full of complex issues where frequently we are forced to give our votes tactically rather than accurately reflecting our first preference.
AV was simple and effective but the No Campaign lied and ruined the debate. "Rank the candidates you support in order of preference". Simple, effective, better.
You do know if that were true it would be illegal and could be prosecuted in a court of law yes? Proven lies were just accepted by the losing side and they did not complain you say?
Okkkaaayyy!
Wanna borrow a tinfoil hat?
Incontinentia Buttocks
Banned
They lied about the cost of implementation IIRC.