Dabookerman
Member
jas0nuk said:
I got into gay bars no problem. They probably won't stop anyone from entering, but those may be more fashioned towards gay people.
UKGAF thread of Politics and Britishness.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
- Status
I got into gay bars no problem. They probably won't stop anyone from entering, but those may be more fashioned towards gay people.
APZonerunner
Member
Brown's nerves have cost him the election. Bottling that announcement over and over again, pushing the election back multiple times - it did incredible amounts of damage. For me I can at least sleep safely knowing that even if the Conservatives get in Cameon's inevitable swing back to the right once he's in office will ensure they only get one term.
Cameron himself may well be different (though I don't trust him - he strikes me as a snake) but he won't have the will to resist the old tory machine once they're in. They'll bend him to their will.
Cameron himself may well be different (though I don't trust him - he strikes me as a snake) but he won't have the will to resist the old tory machine once they're in. They'll bend him to their will.
Dabookerman said:
all depends on the seats, still looking on course for a hung parliament. tories are going to need an absolute majority in the house to secure singular government, which is a fairly gargantuan task, especially if the lib dems can pick up a little steam in the next month.
travisbickle
Member
jas0nuk said:
Are you one step away from "I don't mind gays, I just don't like them lauding it in my face and having sex in our British institution, the bed and breakfast, run by true indigenous religious folk!!!"
Dabookerman
Member
ghst said:
How does a hung parliament work exactly?
killer_clank
Member
Dabookerman said:
The largest party will need the support of other parties and their MPs in order to get things through parliament. This will mean everyone and their dog trying to get concessions in order for them to vote yes.
It's happening in the Scottish Parliament a lot recently, because they way it works means that parties rarely get a majority, so when Labour were in power they had a coalition with the Lib Dems and now the SNP government runs a minority government, which usually brings up some issues everytime a bill is put through.
Dabookerman said:
Two parties (or three, depending on the split of the votes) have to work together to form a majority, otherwise... no government, i think another election has to be called if a majority coalition cant be formed by a certain time.
Its the possibility that our UK parties could be unable to form a coalition that scares investors silly and causes the pound to drop like a stone.
If its a hung parliament, i can see Labour or Tories reaching out the lib-dems to form a majority, lib-dems being the "king-makers" could decide which party they want in power (it would also mean that lib-dems would have more power than they ever had before).
Investors may be skittish about it, but I've said it before that a Lab/Lib hung parliament would be the best thing to happen to this country since the single market. Why? Proportional representation. Labour have already proposed a watered down version [which while not being something I'd particularly like] would still go miles toward ensuring that your votes aren't wasted.Xavien said:
Dabookerman
Member
Thanks. Makes sense.. somewhat ;p
Subliminal
Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
Nathan Christopher Charles Summers
Zenith: I'll quote 2 posts I read earlier today which express what I'm trying to say:
You may think, like me, that it is unacceptable that people still think in this way about homosexuals, but some people do, and the state has no right to "force" liberal views upon everyone. That is my opinion.
--
In a hung parliament, the current Prime Minister remains in charge, as well as all the existing cabinet ministers (even if they lose their House of Commons seats), and the current government tries to form a coalition/minority government with other parties until it can obtain 326 seats. If he fails, the next largest party would attempt to form a coalition.
The idea is that the government has to have enough seats to win a Queen's speech debate when the new Parliament first assembles.
Have no doubt: Brown will hold on to power until there is absolutely no way for him to continue. Only a Conservative majority will see him gone.
You may think, like me, that it is unacceptable that people still think in this way about homosexuals, but some people do, and the state has no right to "force" liberal views upon everyone. That is my opinion.
--
In a hung parliament, the current Prime Minister remains in charge, as well as all the existing cabinet ministers (even if they lose their House of Commons seats), and the current government tries to form a coalition/minority government with other parties until it can obtain 326 seats. If he fails, the next largest party would attempt to form a coalition.
The idea is that the government has to have enough seats to win a Queen's speech debate when the new Parliament first assembles.
Have no doubt: Brown will hold on to power until there is absolutely no way for him to continue. Only a Conservative majority will see him gone.
jas0nuk said:
I don't think your thought experiment works as intended, as I would not agree that the gay proprietors should have the right to evict the extremist Muslims from their establishment for merely voicing their beliefs.
I think that it's difficult with B&Bs as they seem to straddle the line between a private establishment and a public service.
blazinglord
Member
That's what I'm thinking. I've never really considered the traditional B&B as a legitimate proper business, it's just something people do on the side to make a bit of money. It's almost like letting out a room in your house, it doesn't really strike one as being a business. It is in that context one might argue that as it isn't structurally a proper business (most of the time, they probably don't even earn enough to pay business taxes), they ought to have a bit more control of who is sleeping in their house.gerg said:
At the same time though, my own personal view is that the B&B owners who turned away the gay couple should have really let them stay the night if they didn't feel physically threatened by them.
Edit: If I was a hypothetical B&B owner, I wouldn't turn away gay people or those who from ethnic minorities, but I might turn away those who have tattoos and look like they belong on the set of the Sons of Anarchy, as I wouldn't want them sleeping in my own home. Under the law, that would probably constitute as unlawful discrimination, but as a home-owner, I ought to have a right to decide who is going to sleep in the guest bedroom.
J Tourettes
Banned
blazinglord said:
All the B&B's I've experienced in my life were more like hotels rather than families just letting out one or two rooms in their house, hence why I don't see why they should be treated any differently.
JonathanEx
Member
I say it would be nice to have a General Election thread with a new OP, a nice fresh one for the elections when they're officially called.
blazinglord
Member
I'd wait till Gordon Brown actually calls an election first, I still have this niggling feeling he might well just go and bottle it again.Chinner said:
Well, it's quite dilemma. But at the end of it all, I would have to say that Grayling, in his capacity as Shadow Home Secretary, was wrong to say what he said - personal view or not. The sooner Cameron sacks him, the better. I have always preferred to have had David Davis in the job instead as I admire him for his campaign against the 42 days without trial which showed the mark of a principled man.J Tourettes said:
travisbickle
Member
jas0nuk said:
You don't think it's unacceptable, don't lie to us. You've posted two comments, one which compares accommodating a homosexual couple to accommodating pets or children, and one that make the offensive stereotype of all gay men are hedonistic BDSM loving "bikers" and "houseboys".
If you weren't offended by those comments, you're a homophobe.
Zenith... please don't try to twist what I said. I have never said that I'm "against the racial section of the civil rights act", or similar.
Do you not agree that using the rule of law to force people into things they are against often makes the situation worse? The attitude of "tough shit if they don't like it" that people gave as a reply isn't very helpful.
EDIT: travisbickle, come off it. They are analogies/examples to get the idea across that the law is one-sided.
--
OP, I'd make a new topic for the election itself, once it's been called, just for discussing polls and results. General discussion about Politics/Britishness, the original point of this topic, should stay in here.
Do you not agree that using the rule of law to force people into things they are against often makes the situation worse? The attitude of "tough shit if they don't like it" that people gave as a reply isn't very helpful.
EDIT: travisbickle, come off it. They are analogies/examples to get the idea across that the law is one-sided.
--
OP, I'd make a new topic for the election itself, once it's been called, just for discussing polls and results. General discussion about Politics/Britishness, the original point of this topic, should stay in here.
You mean a weak pound that would boost exports? And if we had a boost to exports then we'd be able to contain inflation by simply cutting back on the stimulus funding which also helps with the deficit?jas0nuk said:
Right now we need electoral reform to prevent against another Tory government, more than we need to sooth the fears of a bunch of bankers.
A weak pound doesn't just boost imports, look at the effect it has on fuel prices. Oil has come back down from the $160/barrel it was last year, down to around 80, but due to the collapse of the pound we're paying almost record prices.
From a non-partisan point of view, why would you want to "prevent a Tory government"? Surely every party deserves a fair hearing. Right now, 40% of the electorate want a Conservative government. Less than 30% want a Labour government, and less than 20% want a Lib Dem government. Whether we had STV, PR or FPTP, we'd be looking at a Conservative government. The idea that you have electoral reform to stop a particular party getting in is frankly ridiculous.
From a non-partisan point of view, why would you want to "prevent a Tory government"? Surely every party deserves a fair hearing. Right now, 40% of the electorate want a Conservative government. Less than 30% want a Labour government, and less than 20% want a Lib Dem government. Whether we had STV, PR or FPTP, we'd be looking at a Conservative government. The idea that you have electoral reform to stop a particular party getting in is frankly ridiculous.
travisbickle
Member
jas0nuk said:
Thirty years ago it was "no dogs, no Irish" pinned up on B&B doors. You can go fuck yourself if you think the examples you gave are anything but a bunch of bigots trying to pretend they are fighters against "forced liberalism"!
We're talking about a Bed and Breakfast housing a couple. Anyone that is for discrimination because of the sexuality of this couple is wrong.
It would greatly weaken them. This is simplified but, there's one conservative party, the Tories, and two major progressive parties, Labour and Lib Dems, and a bit on the side with the Greens.Gallbaro said:
These three parties compete for votes among those that aren't exactly conservative. So despite a minority of the population prefering the Tories, they can still get in by virtue of the progressive vote being segmented up.
I mean, come on, we've had 13 years of a hugely underwhelming Labour government, and yet the Conservatives (added onto other right-wing parties) still have significantly less votes than perceived progressives.
The current voting system also means that Lib Dems require multiple times as many votes to win a seat than the other two main parties.
The problem with proportional representation is that it allows very undesirable parties to gain seats, influence, and as a result funding, such as the BNP.
In the 2005 GE, the BNP got 0.7% of the votes. PR would give them up to 5 seats on the back of that. FPTP gives them none, because not enough of a single constituency voted for them; it was spread too thinly across the country.
In the 2005 GE, the BNP got 0.7% of the votes. PR would give them up to 5 seats on the back of that. FPTP gives them none, because not enough of a single constituency voted for them; it was spread too thinly across the country.
Harry_Tequila
Member
jas0nuk said:
It doesn't matter whether anybody thinks that they're "undesirable". They received a proportion of the votes of the electorate, therefore, they should be represented. Who is it for anyone to decide who people should or should not vote for?
In NZ we have MMP which is basically a proportional representation system where you vote for 1 local MP and 1 party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_member_proportional_representation)
A party can get into Parliament if they accquire 1 local electorate seat or get above the threshold (Its 5% in NZ, 3% I think in Germany). If a party fails to get either 1 seat or above the percentage threshold then it fails to have a voice in parliament.
A party can get into Parliament if they accquire 1 local electorate seat or get above the threshold (Its 5% in NZ, 3% I think in Germany). If a party fails to get either 1 seat or above the percentage threshold then it fails to have a voice in parliament.
jas0nuk said:
oh rly?
"the state has no right to "force" liberal views upon everyone."
in response to the law saying you can't turn away gays. You disagree with that law saying views shouldn't be forced on people. Logically you should also disagree with the law saying you can not refuse custom based on someone's race. After all they're just forcing "liberal" views on people.
Unless of course you think turning away people for being gay isn't as bad as turning away people for being black, in which case you just outed your true nature.
And lol at calling anti-discrimination laws "liberal views". Yeah, such a radical left-wing concept. I bet centrists really hate gays.
No I don't agree in the slightest and your approach is completely wrong and ineffective. Check your history. Appeasement did nothing. It was only when the government stepped in and laid down the law that they could phase out all the systemic prejudice.
I know that when you run a business from home you have to send an application to the council to register it. One of the reasons for it is probably for changing legal status about trespass and who you can refuse. It's no longer a guest bedroom, it's a motel room.
J Tourettes
Banned
:lolSalazar said:
I live in Islington but there's plenty worth slandering about it.
Business owners can refuse to admit who they like. Just because it is a business does not mean that the owner of the property has lost all rights and has to provide their service to anyone that comes. The business owner can use whatever reason they want to justify that refusal.
My personal view is that refusing to let a gay couple stay in a B&B just because they're gay is wrong, and the law also says it is wrong unless they can justify why they did it - for example, they felt physically threatened by them. I can't think of any situation in which that would be the case.
At the same time, just because a lot of people think it is wrong for people to discriminate against a certain sexuality does not mean the state can make it illegal for people to have their own private views about that people of that sexuality, however wrong you think that is. We live in a free society.
Finally, I concede that the civil rights act gave the state a foundation to actually make inroads into phasing out extreme groups, e.g. the KKK. I would hardly call such a law an extreme liberal view, it is a reasonable view. But there are still swathes of people across America who are racist, anti-gay, and anti-'anything else you can think of'. The law itself hasn't worked in forcing society to move on, it helped in getting rid of systematic groups who persecuted blacks. Society changes will only come with time and education.
My personal view is that refusing to let a gay couple stay in a B&B just because they're gay is wrong, and the law also says it is wrong unless they can justify why they did it - for example, they felt physically threatened by them. I can't think of any situation in which that would be the case.
At the same time, just because a lot of people think it is wrong for people to discriminate against a certain sexuality does not mean the state can make it illegal for people to have their own private views about that people of that sexuality, however wrong you think that is. We live in a free society.
Finally, I concede that the civil rights act gave the state a foundation to actually make inroads into phasing out extreme groups, e.g. the KKK. I would hardly call such a law an extreme liberal view, it is a reasonable view. But there are still swathes of people across America who are racist, anti-gay, and anti-'anything else you can think of'. The law itself hasn't worked in forcing society to move on, it helped in getting rid of systematic groups who persecuted blacks. Society changes will only come with time and education.
jas0nuk said:
The BNP thrive on a system where power switches hands between Labour and Conservatives with no change, where people feel their vote has no impact, where people don't feel represented, where people vote tactically rather than for the best ideas, where candidates sit pretty in safe seats and feel no need to actually work; that systems problems are partially where the kind of anti-politics sentiment that the BNP exploits for support comes from. Changing to a more proportional system may increase their influence short term, but long-term it helps eliminate the political cynicism that they prey on, and that's why the far right has very little impact in the many other countries with PR.
I'm inclined to agree actually. Your point about power continually switching between Lab and Con is especially true and feeds into voter apathy.Empty said:
As well as PR helping to kill voter apathy off, maybe if the BNP gained some seats and were given a little more rope to hang themselves with people would realise what they actually stand for and they would lose the little credibility they have. I just feel uncomfortable with such a vile party being given even more airtime, credibility, funding and influence and being allowed to use our House of Commons as a springboard for their views.
I'm not in favour of silencing them. I was in favour of Nick Griffin appearing on Question Time because I knew how much of a car crash it would be. There's silencing them, and there's giving them the ability to heavily influence and bring down the tone of our politics.Sir Fragula said:
- Status