Who do want to be the next British Prime Minister? - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: Who do you want to be the next British Prime Minister?
Nicholas Clegg (Liberal Democrat) 0 0%
David Cameron (Conservative) 0 0%
Gordon Brown (Labour) 0 0%
Barack Obama (write-in) 0 0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 05-07-2010, 12:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idhreneth View Post

There's still quite a bit of coal left actually.....

and the privatized british coal industry is digging it up or not digging it up according to market forces.

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 05-07-2010, 12:59 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

thatcher didn't make the coal disappear from the ****ing ground. you did, you used it up. it's not an infinite resource. the coal industry shouldn't existing in a area forever.

Wrong. The coal industry was subsidised by the governement as it was deemed a national asset (people heating their homes, electricity production etc). Coal mines needed to be reformed and updated to make them more viable. Instead of slowly updating the coal industry to make it more viable in the modern market, Thatcher closed many of the mines suddenly and without warning. This was done not because of the viability of the mines but because the miners union was very powerful at the time and these unions were highly critical of the Conservative Party. By closing the mines and destroying these unions, Thatcher was able to take power away from the workers and give it to the business leaders in London. A whole way of life was destroyed in many areas that were almost completely dependent on coal mines for jobs. This was done vindictively. Just another reason why Thatcher is so universally loathed by working men and women of Britain.



How do you feel about taxes? Do you like paying taxes? How about a tax that based not on income but on how many people living in a house? For example, a house with 4 poor occupants with maybe only one of the occupants working would pay more tax than a mansion down the road where only one person lived. Sound good? That's what Thatcher put into place, known as the 'Poll Tax'. This lead to riots and Thatcher's eventual downfall. But I guess you'd like Thatcher to come over to your country to raise the taxes on poor people while lowering them for the rich? How interesting.



How about bankers? Do you like them? Tell me: should bankers be more regulated or less regulated? Well, way back in 1986, Thatcher slashed the regulations of bankers and the financial services industry. Bankers were allowed to run free, do what they want and create financial instruments and more. Good times right? Well, this basically set the wheels in motion for the banking madness of the last few years. So I guess you favour not regulating banks at all?
MrFalafel is offline  
#33 Old 05-07-2010, 01:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
otomik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: columbus, ohio
Posts: 4,248
Mr. Falafel = Old Labour

* This post may contain pork, beef and fingers of undocumented workers. This post was manufactured in a facility that processes peanuts.
otomik is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 05-07-2010, 01:18 AM
...
 
Blobbenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,936
give the right what they want, and there will be nothing left.

Blobbenstein is offline  
#35 Old 05-07-2010, 03:33 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Andromache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 953
Our electoral system is rubbish. Lib Dems have 22.9% of the vote and 52 seats; Labour have 29.3% of the vote and 251 seats!
Andromache is offline  
#36 Old 05-07-2010, 03:41 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andromache View Post

Our electoral system is rubbish. Lib Dems have 22.9% of the vote and 52 seats; Labour have 29.3% of the vote and 251 seats!



It's a double edged sword. If we adopt proportional representation that will open the door to many other parties gaining seats in Parliament. We'd have Greens, UKIP, Christian Democrats, Socialists, BNP and others all shouting their agendas. To get a majority to pass legislation would involve all sorts of deals between various parties. It would most likely lead to a less efficient and more radicalised government.
MrFalafel is offline  
#37 Old 05-07-2010, 03:45 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 3,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

The euro isn't falling apart. I suggest you find a more reliable news source. The euro / pound exchange rate changing in favour of the pound is actually good news for Britain.



if you don't think that the debt crisis is in real danger of spreading to other countries in europe and that the euro isn't threatened and this is somehow good for britian (just bad for the rest of the europe), i would have to say we are indeed reading different news sources and/or we having vastly different understandings of economics. and yes, by the way, i was aware that the uk has not adopted the euro. i just don't think that the uk is as economically isolated from the rest of europe nearly as well as you apparently do.



two notables who think the euro is in serious trouble :



"The Greek financial crisis has put the very survival of the euro at stake," Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote this week in a stark expression of the summit stakes.



US economist Nouriel Roubini also warned on Thursday that the eurozone could "break up," saying "the implosion of the euro(zone) cannot be ruled out."
papayamon is offline  
#38 Old 05-07-2010, 03:53 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by papayamon View Post

if you don't think that the debt crisis is in real danger of spreading to other countries in europe and that the euro isn't threatened and this is somehow good for britian (just bad for the rest of the europe), i would have to say we are indeed reading different news sources and/or we having vastly different understandings of economics. and yes, by the way, i was aware that the uk has not adopted the euro. i just don't think that the uk is as economically isolated from the rest of europe nearly as well as you apparently do.



two notables who think the euro is in serious trouble :



"The Greek financial crisis has put the very survival of the euro at stake," Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote this week in a stark expression of the summit stakes.



US economist Nouriel Roubini also warned on Thursday that the eurozone could "break up," saying "the implosion of the euro(zone) cannot be ruled out."



If you want to believe the crystal ball gazing of a US economist then that's fine. But I would suggest you look a little deeper to find more accurate information other than alarmist and hysterical 'the sky is falling' rants from a non-European.



Lumping Britain's very real problems in with the problems of the eurozone is overly simplistic. The UK's current debt problems are based on a completely different set of circumstances from Greece, Gernany's issues are totally different as well. All of these problems are separate and require separate resolutions. Nobody is seriously considering breaking up the EU or anything like that.
MrFalafel is offline  
#39 Old 05-07-2010, 03:55 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Whoops! Clegg has thrown the Lib Dems behind the Tories in a coalition.



I will now never vote for or have anything to do with the Lib Dems ever again.
MrFalafel is offline  
#40 Old 05-07-2010, 05:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Andromache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

It's a double edged sword. If we adopt proportional representation that will open the door to many other parties gaining seats in Parliament. We'd have Greens, UKIP, Christian Democrats, Socialists, BNP and others all shouting their agendas. To get a majority to pass legislation would involve all sorts of deals between various parties. It would most likely lead to a less efficient and more radicalised government.



Yes, but they probably should - you can't defend an unfair system by saying the nasty people will get a say too.
Andromache is offline  
#41 Old 05-07-2010, 05:44 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andromache View Post

Yes, but they probably should - you can't defend an unfair system by saying the nasty people will get a say too.



The worry is no consensus would ever be made as so many different political agendas would clash and it would constant arguments. Nothing would ever get done. Government would simply stop functioning and citizens problems would not be addressed while politicians are engaged in endless fights. Is that what you want?
MrFalafel is offline  
#42 Old 05-07-2010, 06:08 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Whoops! Clegg has thrown the Lib Dems behind the Tories in a coalition.

I will now never vote for or have anything to do with the Lib Dems ever again.



I don't really see what else he could do though?



I do think it is an unfair system but I am not fond of BNP having any say. I think there might be reform?
GhostUser is offline  
#43 Old 05-07-2010, 06:10 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toast View Post

I don't really see what else he could do though?



I do think it is an unfair system but I am not fond of BNP having any say. I think there might be reform?



Clegg could have joined forces with Labour.
MrFalafel is offline  
#44 Old 05-07-2010, 06:16 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Clegg could have joined forces with Labour.



They still might join Labour but Labour and Lib Dem still wouldn't reach 326 though. (If I'm understanding it properly?) I think the Lib Dem's are just grasping for power and I don't blame them as they have been sidelined for so long. Believe me I am not too happy with the result today. I hoped I would never see another Tory government in this country.
GhostUser is offline  
#45 Old 05-07-2010, 06:19 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,981
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toast View Post

They still might join Labour but Labour and Lib Dem still wouldn't reach 326 though. (If I'm understanding it properly?) I think the Lib Dem's are just grasping for power and I don't blame them as they have been sidelined for so long. Believe me I am not too happy with the result today. I hoped I would never see another Tory government in this country.



Lib Dems are making a huge mistake by joining up with the tories. The will equally be blamed for the coming austerity measures that will anger the entire nation for years. They had their big chance and have blown it.
MrFalafel is offline  
#46 Old 05-07-2010, 06:23 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Lib Dems are making a huge mistake by joining up with the tories. The will equally be blamed for the coming austerity measures that will anger the entire nation for years. They had their big chance and have blown it.



That might well happen unfortunately. I really thought more people would vote for the LD's (even though I didn't lol.)
GhostUser is offline  
#47 Old 05-07-2010, 01:13 PM
Veggie Regular
 
sorrowthepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andromache View Post

Our electoral system is rubbish. Lib Dems have 22.9% of the vote and 52 seats; Labour have 29.3% of the vote and 251 seats!

The California State Assembly is 62% Democrat, 36% Republisomething, 1% Ind. Senate is 66% Dem and 34% Rep. We've had a legislative hostage situation for more than a decade and a cartoon character for governor the past 8 yrs. Welcome to California.

Keep on freepin' on

sorrowthepig is offline  
#48 Old 05-07-2010, 02:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Andromache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrowthepig View Post

The California State Assembly is 62% Democrat, 36% Republisomething, 1% Ind. Senate is 66% Dem and 34% Rep. We've had a legislative hostage situation for more than a decade and a cartoon character for governor the past 8 yrs. Welcome to California.



I think you may have missed my point (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you). I was pointing out that the number of seats is not a fair representation of the votes.
Andromache is offline  
#49 Old 05-07-2010, 02:03 PM
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andromache View Post

I think you may have missed my point (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you). I was pointing out that the number of seats is not a fair representation of the votes.



I agree with you, I want proportional representation all the way. Yeah, the BNP would be represented but they SHOULD be. If a certain percentage of people think the BNP best fits their idea of what should be done with the country, then that should be represented in government, regardless of what the rest of us think about it. They would then be forced to be more transparent about their policies and people would actually realise what hate-filled, nasty racists they are. And other parties would get a chance to show their true colours as well, which can only be good for the government.
Earthling is offline  
#50 Old 05-07-2010, 02:56 PM
Veggie Regular
 
das_nut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8,130
Since I listened to BBC World Service for about 2 hours at work today, I believe I am entirely qualified to comment.



Quote:
Originally Posted by havocjohn View Post

I voted for sending you all Barak since you like him so much in europe, he's all yours!



Damned it I know why.



He's a right-winger by European standards.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Idhreneth View Post

There's still quite a bit of coal left actually.....



But is it cost-effective to mine?



Quote:
Originally Posted by papayamon View Post

if you don't think that the debt crisis is in real danger of spreading to other countries in europe and that the euro isn't threatened and this is somehow good for britian (just bad for the rest of the europe), i would have to say we are indeed reading different news sources and/or we having vastly different understandings of economics. and yes, by the way, i was aware that the uk has not adopted the euro. i just don't think that the uk is as economically isolated from the rest of europe nearly as well as you apparently do.



That's my take on it.



The question is, can the EU economic firewalls work? Or will the rot spread?



Worst-case scenario would be that the EU is facing a situation similar to 1989 Japan. I don't think their economy is as bubblish as Japan's was, but I would consider a lost decade to be a real possibility.



Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Whoops! Clegg has thrown the Lib Dems behind the Tories in a coalition.



I will now never vote for or have anything to do with the Lib Dems ever again.



That's the sort of partisan politics a USian would be proud of!
das_nut is offline  
#51 Old 05-07-2010, 03:08 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Andromache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFalafel View Post

Lib Dems are making a huge mistake by joining up with the tories. The will equally be blamed for the coming austerity measures that will anger the entire nation for years. They had their big chance and have blown it.



I don't see how a Lib-Tory coalition could work, their parties' policies are so different.
Andromache is offline  
#52 Old 05-07-2010, 04:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
sorrowthepig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andromache View Post

I think you may have missed my point (or maybe I'm just misunderstanding you). I was pointing out that the number of seats is not a fair representation of the votes.

We have a barely adequate version of proportional representation here, nationwide as well as my home state, and an absolute absence of majority rule in the state. I guess my point was more specifically about the now "hung Parliament" situation and how -- here, in CA -- a 1/3 minority can hijack the future of 36 million people and an entire generation.



Your situation still sucks, but at least you still have 2+ discernible parties from which to choose.

Keep on freepin' on

sorrowthepig is offline  
#53 Old 05-07-2010, 05:41 PM
American Made, Rebel Born
 
Kenickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: House of Gaunt
Posts: 6,473
Quote:
Originally Posted by otomik View Post

Mr. Falafel = Old Labour



heehee.

cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war.
Kenickie is offline  
#54 Old 05-08-2010, 01:04 AM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Earthling View Post

I agree with you, I want proportional representation all the way. Yeah, the BNP would be represented but they SHOULD be. If a certain percentage of people think the BNP best fits their idea of what should be done with the country, then that should be represented in government, regardless of what the rest of us think about it. They would then be forced to be more transparent about their policies and people would actually realise what hate-filled, nasty racists they are. And other parties would get a chance to show their true colours as well, which can only be good for the government.



I think you are right. It is such an unfair system. (I live in an area with a strong BNP presence so I think that's why I don't like the idea of the fools getting any more say.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Andromache View Post

I don't see how a Lib-Tory coalition could work, their parties' policies are so different.



I hope they can't reach an agreement.
GhostUser is offline  
#55 Old 05-08-2010, 10:04 AM
...
 
Blobbenstein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 3,936
I can't see a Lib-Con coalition working...I think too many Liberal MPs would rebel.



If Harriet Harman were to replace Gordon Brown, as leader, then maybe a Lib-Lab coalition could form a minority government as the largest coalition party.



Or maybe there could be a referendum with only Labour, and Conservatives as the option, the winner forming the government, and the MPs keeping their initial seats.

Blobbenstein is offline  
#56 Old 05-08-2010, 01:39 PM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
It's interesting to note the parallels between this election and the 2000 U.S. election. Particularly the role of the Queen in choosing the PM if the parties can't sort this out, versus our Supreme Court.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/p...10/8667820.stm
Red is offline  
#57 Old 05-09-2010, 03:37 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Andromache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

It's interesting to note the parallels between this election and the 2000 U.S. election. Particularly the role of the Queen in choosing the PM if the parties can't sort this out, versus our Supreme Court.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/p...10/8667820.stm



The Queen doesn't choose the PM. It says in the article you cited:

Quote:

That is something for the politicians to sort out.



It is not for the Queen to decide who should be prime minister and, after nearly 60 years on the throne and eleven different prime ministers - from Winston Churchill to Gordon Brown - she is keenly aware of the potential pitfalls for a hereditary monarchy of being drawn into refereeing the outcome of an inconclusive election.



The Queen may be the font of authority, but it is not her role to determine who should receive her invitation to exercise that authority.

Andromache is offline  
#58 Old 05-09-2010, 01:33 PM
Red
Veggie Regular
 
Red's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 4,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andromache View Post

The Queen doesn't choose the PM. It says in the article you cited:



Actually, she does. Usually it's just rubber stamping and ceremonial, but sometimes the Monarch actually has to do the work. In all cases, the U.K. doesn't have a government until the King/Queen invites them to form one.



http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealt...overnment.aspx



and BTW - did you skim past the very first sentence in that BBC article?



Quote:
The Queen is the only person who can invite someone to form a government and to become prime minister.

Red is offline  
#59 Old 05-09-2010, 03:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Andromache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

Actually, she does. Usually it's just rubber stamping and ceremonial, but sometimes the Monarch actually has to do the work. In all cases, the U.K. doesn't have a government until the King/Queen invites them to form one.



http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/wealt...overnment.aspx



and BTW - did you skim past the very first sentence in that BBC article?



Yes but only when the politicians have decided who it's going to be. The Queen doesn't have any real powers, they're all ceremonial.
Andromache is offline  
#60 Old 05-09-2010, 03:36 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red View Post

It's interesting to note the parallels between this election and the 2000 U.S. election. Particularly the role of the Queen in choosing the PM if the parties can't sort this out, versus our Supreme Court.





I'm not sure what the parallels are. The Supreme Court doesn't have a legislated or Constitutional role in Presidential elections, and, as far as I know, the Queen's role is ceremonial.
mlp is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off