-
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
Subliminal
Member
David cameron international politician extraordinaire!
where ever you go, insult their enemies!
where ever you go, insult their enemies!
kobashi100 said:
Pakistani news outlets are shamelessly crap and it makes me cringe when I read them. Hizb ut-Tahrir are an organization with a militant belief in the establishment of a caliphate, and whom refused to condemn the London terrorist attacks. They can fuck off with their views as far as I'm concerned. Oh and anyone who believes that the Pakistan secret service doesn't fund and support networks such as Lashkar-e-Taiba is in denial.
J Tourettes
Banned
curls said:
His condemnation of Israel gave me a chuckle. How many years of a Labour PM and nary a bad word said? Then along comes a Tory PM shooting from the hip. :lol
The world has gone mad. :lol
The best bit about Cameron stating the truth about Gaza is that it made the right flip their shit doubly as one of them is doing the job labour should have done.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6171324/weep-for-britain-1940-this-is-not.thtml
Drinking the bitter tears of Melanie Phillips in the spectator is so delicious.
I think Cameron has actually been pretty good this week on foreign policy, to be honest.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6171324/weep-for-britain-1940-this-is-not.thtml
Drinking the bitter tears of Melanie Phillips in the spectator is so delicious.
I think Cameron has actually been pretty good this week on foreign policy, to be honest.
curls said:
yeah me too, he actually, can't believe I'm saying this, isn't full of shit...I mean, he says what he thinks and doesn't dodge questions too much. It sometimes seems like he's ashamed of his own party sometimes, with the old guard of homophobes and duck ponders. He also does seem to be really quite liberal, something which can only be good for the UK (in my view)
kobashi100
Banned
Meadows said:
Your wrong about Hizb ut-Tahrir. They condemned 9/11 and 7/7 terrorist attacks. Also they are a non violent political party.
Keyser Soze
Member
Boris Johnson on The One Show is a genius
"Ram your implement into the docking slot" (talking about the London bike scheme)
"Blind F1 racing would be wonderful in the Paraolympics" (out of frikken nowhere)
LOL
"Ram your implement into the docking slot" (talking about the London bike scheme)
"Blind F1 racing would be wonderful in the Paraolympics" (out of frikken nowhere)
LOL
it was basically telling us what we knew, and all the politicians in the interviews seem fairly satisfied themselves, but it was a nice recap. clegg is revealing himself to be a liar though. we're obviously 5 years away from the next election, but i reckon the lib dems are going to crash and burn badly next election.Empty said:
also, this is quite rad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsyEB7g9T-I
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-in-campaign-against-vote-reform-2040853.html
Unions will front massive campaign against voting form because an accurate representation of votes means less votes for Labour. This legislation is so dead in the water.
Unions will front massive campaign against voting form because an accurate representation of votes means less votes for Labour. This legislation is so dead in the water.
killer_clank
Member
Ugh.
louis89
Member
If they get their way, that means that the Conservatives have gotten through boundary reforms, which benefit them and hurt Labour, and have escaped AV which would hurt both of them, but would help the Lib Dems who are surely their second choice. How is that in the unions' interests?Zenith said:
well it's harder to buy an MP with union money when they need 50% of their constituents support to get a seat. AV forces MP's to represent more than just a small vested interest, so it neutralizes them a bit there. also because if AV fails electoral reform is dead for a generation, and they don't want any kind of electoral reform because that stops their party getting 100% of the power on the votes of 22% of the population, like they did in 2005.
The boundary reform is coming regardless, there's nothing they can do about it. All they can do is try keep Labour from taking any more damage, and stopping AV will do exactly that.louis89 said:
From a union point of view there's really no difference between the Lib Dems and Tories. Bbarely any of the Lib Dem's social policies will ever be put into place, as it should be since they're by far the minority partner in either coalition scenario (see the scraps thrown to them this time such as the pupil plus). Instead all we get is a couple of the party's right wing put into ministerial positions where they may as well be Conservatives anyway.
Chinner said:
Labour's support of AV never rang true, it was just a deathbed conversion to appeal to the Lib Dems ahead of a likely hung parliament.
They are just using the boundary changes to campaign against something which would harm them as much as the Tories now they have nothing to gain from it.
Hey guyz! Know the current news that the overstretched MoD is having to pay for Trident instead of the Treasury? I was hoping it was a prelude to them scaling back the project or delaying it. Turns out they want the MoD to pay for all of it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...328/Armed-forces-stunned-by-Trident-bill.html
So now the army is going to have to skimp on units that are of fundamental use to pay for a project that the gov itsef has already said is "purely a political weapon".
Just because they made it a Toryn ideology to be anti-CND the country will in fact be less able to defend itself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...328/Armed-forces-stunned-by-Trident-bill.html
So now the army is going to have to skimp on units that are of fundamental use to pay for a project that the gov itsef has already said is "purely a political weapon".
Just because they made it a Toryn ideology to be anti-CND the country will in fact be less able to defend itself.
DECK'ARD said:
I'm going to vote no on voting reform anyways, i thought LD being in power would be a good thing, but here we are.
I have no faith in any of them anymore. I also hate that the tories are adding boundary changes to the mix which ensures them an unfair advantage compared to anyone else. Plus the added difficulty in getting a vote of no confidence feels like the tories are trying to make sure they get in at the next election no matter what. I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to push a bill through which means you only need 40% to pass a bill into law.
Democracy in this country has taken 10 steps back and not a single step forward.
Several changes i've seen from the condems are just sending this country back 20 years or further and i've yet to see anything positive come from this government, the DE bill is staying, personal liberties are still restricted, its like having a tory government with none of the benefits in regards to restoring personal liberties.
Not to mention the constant brow-beating by tory cabinet ministers on moral issues that they really have no right in commenting on or even legislating against (which they are doing to make sure the pope :lol doesn't get arrested and charged for certain crimes).
Backward government in every sense of the word.
Subliminal
Member
Xavien said:
"I don't like a Liberal democrat government so i'm going to vote to stay with red blue politics"
I look forward to the referendum. I will threaten anyone i know who plans to vote no.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Zenith said:
If I were a GMB member I'd cease my payments immediately because of that. Fucking disgusting, self serving, self preserving Labour lap-dogs. How about they let their members make up their own fucking minds?
I'm going to join the Yes campaign with a big dollop of angry gusto when this shit gets under way. I will probably lose friends over it if any of them vote no.
The unions, very wealthy right wing tories and the right wing press combined against AV.
taking into account the lack of enthusiasm among liberals thanks to it being av not pr, and the wide feeling of disenfranchisement with the current government and the lib dems role in it.
we're so fucked.
taking into account the lack of enthusiasm among liberals thanks to it being av not pr, and the wide feeling of disenfranchisement with the current government and the lib dems role in it.
we're so fucked.
blazinglord
Member
Even if the referendum results in a no majority, the boundary changes are still going through. Not even Labour publicly opposes the principle of equal sized constituencies, they are claiming (unsuccessfully) to be only concerned about the 3.5 million voters not on the electoral register despite doing nothing about it for ten years and dragging their feet on voters registration. Labour also opposes reducing the size of the house of commons which is the largest legislative chamber in the western world, despite A. UK a geographically small island off the coast of Europe, B. size reduction having widespread public support and lastly C. was in both the Lib Dems' AND Conservatives' manifestos.Xavien said:
Point is though, you voting no in the referendum will do nothing to stop the boundary changes if that is your sole motivation for voting that way. What it will do though, is kill the electoral reform issue dead for another generation, which is why I, as a supporter of FPTP, will be voting no too. People must be dense to think that this country is ever going to drastically change from FPTP to PR - it has taken over a century just to reform the House of Lords which still isn't complete. The conversion from AV to PR, while wouldn't happen overnight, would be a likelier and less drastically radical prospect with precedent.
Er how?
There has been some disappointments with regard to civil liberties, but it is a definitely improvement on the last lot. ID cards have been abolished, stop-and-search laws have been curtailed, the proposals for directly elected police commissioners will bring some real accountability to the police. My only real disappointment was that the attorney-general didn't intervene with the Ian Tomlinson case. But you can hardly blame the government for a decision taken by Keir Stammer (a Labour appointment). And presumably the coalition wants the police's support in case of civil unrest in the Autumn and next year when the cuts start to bite.
If you are referring to the universal jurisdiction warrant reform then you have been misinformed. Allow me to direct you to a guardian article which summarises what the reforms really mean and the difference between the coalition's proposal and Straw's.
killer_clank
Member
I always thought that any possible boundary changes would have to go through a comission to make sure they are fair?
J Tourettes
Banned
Mr. Sam said:
Throw in beer and I'm there.
I'm with you on this; this reform will not make it that much fairer. In fact, I think it will cause a lower turnout as it will no doubt confuse a lot of voters from all sides. Plus there's the added problem of reducing the number of inner city constituencies. You'd have to be blind to not realise who benefits the most from this reform.Xavien said:
This reform is simply not worth it. Especially since far fewer people are going to vote Lib Dem in the future anyway.
Wouldn't it be difficult to force this through without a Tory majori... ah who cares, it'll be passed, no other party will have a significant challenge to the current government for years and the Unions will get increasing support from the inner city Labour supporters - basically everybody loses.Mr. Sam said:
killer_clank
Member
I'm watching it. He seems to be doing an OK job of it so far. Definitely better than Brown at this sort of thing.
killer_clank
Member
Chinner said:
None so far. Although I did only start watching when they were going on about culture and shit, i'm not fully paying attention. :lol
blazinglord said:
The coalition has allowed the Conservatives to do whatever they want and basically say the Lib Dems wanted it, the Lib Dems are not following through with their manifestos and saying the Tories made them do it.
There is now officially zero accountability, one side can just blame the other when they don't follow through with policy promised in the election. At-least with the last government if something went wrong or they didn't follow through with policy you knew exactly where the blame lay.
This coalition is a disaster in regards to policy accountability.
As to your link, i was not misinformed, there are changes, they can no-longer be arrested if the prosecution doesn't feel they have enough evidence to prosecute. So, i guess the secretive catholic church has no worries here then.
Finally, As others have said, the reducing of inner city constituencies is aimed squarely at reducing the chances of winning the next election of one party and only one, the Labour Party, it also gives more power to less people in the country (i live in the rural countryside and in a Tory constituency) .
It also could be said that Labours so called structural-deficit, seems to be well on its way to being resolved naturally by the economy and the increase of tax money as a result, the banks are returning to profitability, the economy is returning to growth, none-of-this was caused by the coalition, it was caused by the legacy of the Labour Party. Unfortunately the coalition (see: Tories hiding behind the coalitions veil) is going way overboard with cuts that will not be needed in the long run as growth ensures the removal of the deficit, if anything i can see the cuts making things worse in the long run for everybody concerned in the country (both financially and socially).
The very worst thing i fear from this coalition is the privatisation and deconstruction of the NHS, which is ironic because the Tories and LD said they were not going to touch the NHS during the election.
Xavien said:
Public sector debt has been rising since 2002/2003 despite strong growth and a long period of prosperity under Labour. Im not going to predict the future but to say that the deficit will be resolved "naturally" through economic growth ignores the trend of the past decade.
blazinglord
Member
Britain was living beyond its means before the economic crisis, even Alistair Darling recognised that Britain could never go back to pre-2007 levels of public spending. I don't really think there is any sleight of hand going on here though, Cameron has made it clear that he wants to roll back the state. The most of the public appears to be behind this, in yesterday's guardian it mentioned that a left-wing thinktank Demos found that "Many who had voted for Labour in the past but switched support in the general election told the pollsters they believed that state spending had reached or even breached acceptable limits". That's just Labour supporters!Xavien said:
As for the NHS, it's original purpose was to 'provide a free, comprehensive healthcare service, with delivery at the point of need, regardless of the ability to pay' and I fully expect that to remain. Privatisation of parts of the NHS, and allowing hospitals to provide private services for patients to jump the queue in 2-4 weeks, to fund the rest in 4-8 weeks instead of forcing everyone to wait six months seems entirely reasonable to me and better for everyone. What I do find ironic though, is that these aren't original ideas but the natural progression/extension of Blair's market reforms.
Who, other than the Keynesian dinosaur David Blanchflower, are staking their reputation on a double dip recession? The consensus is very much now, after the better-than-expected 1.1% increase in the last quarter, that the likelihood of a double dip has passed.Chinner said: