Politics [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Politics

SuperBlob
3 Apr 2007, 16:57
I'm not a particularly political person myself, especially seeing as most of the stuff said means nothing to me, but what about everyone elses views? Are you against Tony Blair? Are you against them tories?
Having said that though, after seeing The Damned and having Captain Sensible talk about his own political party, I've taken a look at the main website for it. (http://www.blahparty.org/index.php) It's all down to public choice, where people suggest different things for the manifesto, where the best get picked by the Captain and voted for by the public. I have to say, that I agree with a lot of it, especially the whole tobacco industry stuff.
Anyway, post, discuss, but try and avoid flame wars.

Muzer
3 Apr 2007, 18:23
I don't like tories.
I don't like Blair either, but labour in general is usually good IMHO.

evilworm2
3 Apr 2007, 18:24
Are you guys old enough to vote? ;)
I mean 15 and 12...

SuperBlob
3 Apr 2007, 18:27
Are you guys old enough to vote? ;)
I mean 15 and 12...
Shh you :p
I got the idea from another forum, and...well...I'm bored :p

Alien King
3 Apr 2007, 18:31
The legal voting age in Britain (England at least), is 18. The next General Election will probably occur 2010, by which time, anyone of the age of 15 now, will be able to vote then (of course, it may come earlier, therefore, this may not be the case). This means that it could be advisable that people of my age and younger to pay more attention to politics than they did when they were only 10.

tgworm
3 Apr 2007, 18:56
Lib Dems just feel like the right party. Followed by Labour. I greatly hate the Tories.

thomasp
3 Apr 2007, 19:11
I really think the UK needs to sort its voting system out...
Last election, I really didn't know who to vote for - our local MP (who's been in the seat for many years) is excellent and he would have got my vote - but, his party (at the time) was useless and would have been even more useless at leading the country. However, the party that in my eyes would have done the "best" job of leading the country had a totally useless local MP candidate. So, I was completely unsure who to vote for.
I think we should vote for local MPs - then the party with the greatest number of local MPs elected is the "leading" party. Then, a couple of weeks later, we vote for the Prime Minister from a few candidates put forward by said party. That way, we actually get to decide who leads the country, rather than letting the party decide.

Paul.Power
3 Apr 2007, 19:11
I voted Lib Dem last time.
I'll be voting Labour this time because:
1. Charles Kennedy was far more likeable than Menzies Campbell.
2. The Lib Dems have slowly been inching to the right.
3. Gordon Brown should be better.
4. David Cameron looks scarily electable.
5. It was fun in Cambridge turning over a majority last time.

Star Worms
3 Apr 2007, 19:13
I'll probably vote Lib Dem. Even if it is for their backstabbing leader, I see him as the lesser of 3 evils.
Brown sold off half of our gold 9 years ago. Now gold is worth nearly 2.5 times as much. Way to go Gordon! There goes several billion £s down the drain...
I could never bring myself to vote for Labour or the Conservatives after the mess they've left behind.

AndrewTaylor
3 Apr 2007, 19:20
3. Gordon Brown should be better.
Thing about Brown, to my mind, is that he hasn't really done anything. I mean, Blair's done a lot of things. Some good, some bad, usually in that order. Brown's done nothing. He's done a pretty good job on the economy, but then, Charlotte Church did a pretty good job of singing vocal harmonies: doesn't mean he'd be a good leader.
And he does seem to give a general air of being a bit unpleasant -- not the kind of guy you'd instinctively trust. Am I the only person who gets that from him? I mean, I know it's irrational, but those instincts are there for a reason.

Plasma
3 Apr 2007, 19:24
I vote that I'm Irish!
If I could vote, I'd go for Fianna Fail (the republican party). They've done a brilliant job so far!

Star Worms
3 Apr 2007, 19:27
I really think the UK needs to sort its voting system out...
Last election, I really didn't know who to vote for - our local MP (who's been in the seat for many years) is excellent and he would have got my vote - but, his party (at the time) was useless and would have been even more useless at leading the country. However, the party that in my eyes would have done the "best" job of leading the country had a totally useless local MP candidate. So, I was completely unsure who to vote for.
I think we should vote for local MPs - then the party with the greatest number of local MPs elected is the "leading" party. Then, a couple of weeks later, we vote for the Prime Minister from a few candidates put forward by said party. That way, we actually get to decide who leads the country, rather than letting the party decide.Same situation here. My MP is conservative and he's been in for ages. He's pretty much certain to get in, I think. So it's not like my vote would really count anyway :p

thomasp
3 Apr 2007, 19:33
3. Gordon Brown should be better.
Should but probably won't. And he'll probably bore us all to tears in the mean time, then find a way to tax us for being bored. Then tax us for being taxed.
Then just tax us again for good measure.

wigwam the
3 Apr 2007, 19:43
I vote Lib dem because yellow is my favourite colour.

Scotworm
3 Apr 2007, 20:04
*Throws Scottish National Party into the ring*
I'm in a similair position to thomasp - the SNP's have been where I live for ages, and as far as I can see, they've done I pretty good job. However, I'm not too sure about bigger policies, particularly the Scottish independence. It's great that we'll get to make decisions here, and not in another country (:p), but it could also mean alot of job losses and such. For example, there are some RAF bases in our area that are essentially the backbone of the local economy. It's been said that, if we do become seperated, the RAF (based in England, obviously) will think it's much easier to have the bases in England and just pull out. Things like that seem worrying.
So, when I'm of age, I'll make everyone vote the Mad Raving Loony Party, sit back, watch the entire British empire collapse in on in itsself, then lol. :p

Cyclaws
3 Apr 2007, 20:16
And he does seem to give a general air of being a bit unpleasant -- not the kind of guy you'd instinctively trust. Am I the only person who gets that from him? I mean, I know it's irrational, but those instincts are there for a reason.
There's also the fact that a Prime Minister has to look fairly good, since he's the face of Britain. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that the guys ability to actually govern the country is more important, but it is still fairly important that our face looks good.
And Gordon Brown is hardly a charm to look at.

AndrewTaylor
3 Apr 2007, 20:22
There's also the fact that a Prime Minister has to look fairly good, since he's the face of Britain. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that the guys ability to actually govern the country is more important, but it is still fairly important that our face looks good.
And Gordon Brown is hardly a charm to look at.
Explain John Major, then.

Pigbuster
3 Apr 2007, 20:27
I.E., BRITISH politics.
Not much to talk about over in Ameriland except "lol bush".

Cyclaws
3 Apr 2007, 20:27
I dunno'. Was he a good leader? If so, perhaps people looked past his looks.

evilworm2
3 Apr 2007, 20:28
I.E., BRITISH politics.
Not much to talk about over in Ameriland except "lol bush".
The US of A... I could puke about (on?) their politics.

Plasma
3 Apr 2007, 20:57
Not much to talk about over in Ameriland except "lol bush".
1: lol Bush
2: lol sexism
3: lol no chance of any 3rd party getting elected (Yeah, their election system SUCKS!)
4: lol they've declared war again

SuperBlob
3 Apr 2007, 21:03
There's also the fact that a Prime Minister has to look fairly good, since he's the face of Britain. Now, don't get me wrong, I know that the guys ability to actually govern the country is more important, but it is still fairly important that our face looks good.
And Gordon Brown is hardly a charm to look at.
Pfft, what about Mrs Thatcher. She looked like a...well, nothing is that bad, and from what I've heard, she almost ruined the country :p

Alien King
3 Apr 2007, 21:18
Pfft, what about Mrs Thatcher. She looked like a...well, nothing is that bad, and from what I've heard, she almost ruined the country :p
Not really, I've heard some good stuff about her, although some strange stuff also came through.

Pigbuster
4 Apr 2007, 05:12
1: lol Bush
2: lol sexism
3: lol no chance of any 3rd party getting elected (Yeah, their election system SUCKS!)
4: lol they've declared war again
If we HAVE declared war again, it's news to me. The Daily Show is out for the week, so how would I find out? REAL news shows? Pft. :p
It isn't really the politics that are messed up. Blame the voters.
It's pretty much useless to vote for a third party since it's a near-sure thing that they won't gain the majority (I have seen it happen, though. For instance, here in Minnesota we elected an ex-pro wrestler to be governor. :D).
Because voters don't seem to know or care about politics. They just decide if they're democrat/republican and vote accordingly.
It seems silly to post in this thread. I have no idea how British politics work. Here's what I know:
1) There's the queen/king.
2) There's the prime minister, who I assume is king of the ministers, or something. Probably something like the pope.
3) It seems like you VOTE for the prime minister.
4) Since the queen should do SOMEthing, let's make it so she decides, using magical royal family spells, who would run for prime minister.
5) Heck, let's make it so the prime minister candidates are SUMMONED by the queen.
6) There appear to be multiple political parties, such as Labor, Tory, Pinko, and Chav.
7) The prime minister talks with George Bush. They talk about "foreign issues".
8) Somewhere along the line, Richard Branson does something.
That guy does EVERYthing.
The end.

Star Worms
4 Apr 2007, 05:31
It seems silly to post in this thread. I have no idea how British politics work. Here's what I know:
1) There's the queen/king.
2) There's the prime minister, who I assume is king of the ministers, or something. Probably something like the pope.
3) It seems like you VOTE for the prime minister.
4) Since the queen should do SOMEthing, let's make it so she decides, using magical royal family spells, who would run for prime minister.
5) Heck, let's make it so the prime minister candidates are SUMMONED by the queen.
6) There appear to be multiple political parties, such as Labor, Tory, Pinko, and Chav.
7) The prime minister talks with George Bush. They talk about "foreign issues".
8) Somewhere along the line, Richard Branson does something.
That guy does EVERYthing.
The end.
1) Yes
2) Not king or pope but the leader of the party which has the majority of elected MPs
3) We vote for MPs for our local area. However if I voted Labour, it's effectively a vote for their leader because the number of MPs elected determines who becomes the PM
4) After the election, the queen asks the new PM to start the government, although she can deny.
5) Not sure what you mean by that
6) Thankfully, I don't think there's a Chav party. The main 2 are the Conservatives and Labour but the Lib Dems have been increasing in popularity, making it closer to a 3 party contest.
7) Yes
8) Yes
Just checked my area and 50% of the votes have gone conservative in the past 2 elections, so my vote doesn't really count.
One problem I have with the election system is that some regions have lower populations than others and yet their MP counts the same towards the PM. So effectively, their votes are worth more. I think it's the same kind of system in the US, in the sense that it has the same problem. One party could get more votes but also have less seats.

Pigbuster
4 Apr 2007, 06:30
One problem I have with the election system is that some regions have lower populations than others and yet their MP counts the same towards the PM. So effectively, their votes are worth more. I think it's the same kind of system in the US, in the sense that it has the same problem. One party could get more votes but also have less seats.
Over here, high population states have more people in the house of representatives.
And they get more electoral votes, as well.
So I think we solved that problem, but I dunno.
No matter how many government classes I take, it seems like I'm never able to remember it too well.

Paul.Power
4 Apr 2007, 12:40
Well, they're tackled in different ways. In America, more populous regions get more seats. In Britain, they get split up into more individual seats.
I think I prefer the British system. It generally means you don't have to rely on a couple of people in Florida or Ohio to swing the vote (although it did allow Thatcher to repeatedly win elections by pandering to the "West Coast Main Line Corridor").

Plasma
4 Apr 2007, 12:46
If we HAVE declared war again, it's news to me. The Daily Show is out for the week, so how would I find out? REAL news shows? Pft. :p
No, they haven't since Iraq. Unfortunately, I expect them to start a war with Iran any day now.

Paul.Power
4 Apr 2007, 12:53
The monarch's basic job is to be a figurehead head of state and do head of statey things, to let the head of government (the PM) get on with... well, governing.
1: lol Bush
2: lol sexism
3: lol no chance of any 3rd party getting elected (Yeah, their election system SUCKS!)
4: lol they've declared war again
sony lol

Star Worms
4 Apr 2007, 18:29
Over here, high population states have more people in the house of representatives.
And they get more electoral votes, as well.
So I think we solved that problem, but I dunno.
No matter how many government classes I take, it seems like I'm never able to remember it too well.But aren't all the seats for all the candidates in the winning party?
If so then, if the USA was made up of 2 states (for simplicity). One party could win by 1 vote in state A and lose by 10,000,000 votes in state B and yet have a rather even proportion of seats, even though more voted for the other party.

Preasure
4 Apr 2007, 20:09
But aren't all the seats for all the candidates in the winning party?
If so then, if the USA was made up of 2 states (for simplicity). One party could win by 1 vote in state A and lose by 10,000,000 votes in state B and yet have a rather even proportion of seats, even though more voted for the other party.
That's always how I've thought it was, but correct me if I'm wrong.
tHe problem with british politics is that it's no longer one set of ideals vs another, both parties are moving closer and closer to the centre so that in the end they're standing for pretty much the same stuff. There's no longer a policy divide between labour gunning for the working class and the tories going for the upper class, now every party is aiming it's strategies at everyone. And the sad thing is is that everyting comes down not to running the country well, but on staying in favour and power.

AndrewTaylor
5 Apr 2007, 13:06
tHe problem with british politics is that it's no longer one set of ideals vs another, both parties are moving closer and closer to the centre so that in the end they're standing for pretty much the same stuff. There's no longer a policy divide between labour gunning for the working class and the tories going for the upper class, now every party is aiming it's strategies at everyone.
Well in some ways that's good. Giving people a choice between two extremes isn't helpful. What tends to happen, in theory, is that two or three parties will each talk and decide what they think should happen -- and almost anyone can join these parties and have a say -- and then everyone gets to pick their favourite of these plans.
Anything too extreme will usually be shouted down by the minority parties in the Commons, and then any crazy stuff that gets past them will usually fall at the hands of the Lords -- unelected they may be, but they're generally pretty damn good at ignoring political stuff and doing the right thing (though both houses could use some decent science graduates to help them with the difficult stuff). Probably the fact that lords are unelected helps them be more objective.
It usually works well. Usually. Certainly both houses have done some good work in reigning in some of Blair's more insane ideas.

Paul.Power
5 Apr 2007, 15:24
Some kind of equivalent of jury duty for a section of the House of Lords would be pretty cool.

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.