UK General Election 2015

[Thanas]

As for German Empire building, so far we bloody have got none of the benefits I commonly associate with Empire. I mean, just judging from the British examples, where are the lesser races to wipe out civilize? Where is my India to oppress for centuries? Where is my Ireland to starve? And where is my Africa to rape and plunder?

Germany already did its share of plundering and starvation in Africa.

Look at the dates and then tell me honestly that this has anything to do with the EU GERMAN EMPIRE AS ENVISIONED BY UKIP.

[Captain Seafort]

Look at the dates and then tell me honestly that this has anything to do with the EU GERMAN EMPIRE AS ENVISIONED BY UKIP.

Whereas the Irish and Bengal famines both happened last year?

[Thanas]

Look at the dates and then tell me honestly that this has anything to do with the EU GERMAN EMPIRE AS ENVISIONED BY UKIP.

Whereas the Irish and Bengal famines both happened last year?

Missing the point, again. Where the fuck does the EU resemble a German Empire in any way, shape or form?

[jwl]

Mixed-member proportional representation is a PR system with local MPs.

So this is suggesting some elected MPs in the house of commons don't get a vote? That's better, but not by a lot. How do you decide which MPs get the vote?

Bot quite, all the MPs can vote and have the same rights. There is no discrimination between them.

Oh wait, they add seats, not take them away. I still prefer FPTP but it's getting better.



Anyway, I might as well list all eight lib dem MPs now they are small enough to list:

Nick Clegg

Tim Farron

Norman Lamb

Greg Mulholland

Tom Brake

John Pugh

Mark Williams

Alistair Carmichael

I don't know how things work in the UK, but in Canada who your local MP really doesn't matter, unless they are the party leader or have a position in Cabinet. Most of them do little more than rubber stamp the party platform, read out prepared speeches and read out prepared answers when the media dares ask a question. We might as well get rid of all our MPs and just vote on who we want for Prime Minister for the next few years. Failing that, the same thing would no doubt happen here proportional voting or mixed voting, but at least the the number of seats won for each party will more closely match the actual election results.

With regards to coalition governments, I'm guessing they wouldn't work in the UK for some reason over the long term? Because there are several countries where coalition governments are the norm, and most of them seem to do ok.

Well that certainly doesn't happen in my area of the country at least. Good MPs stand up for issues raised by their constituents. If you have a major problem with something, you write you you MP, they at least write back and hopefully sort the issue out.

On national issues, if a backbencher, they rebel against their party on issues a lot of their constituents feel strongly about; if a frontbencher, they bring it up with the party leadership. Without lib dem and some tory rebels (and labour backbenches threatening to) we would probably have a military force in syria now.

[Ultonius]

Look at the dates and then tell me honestly that this has anything to do with the EU GERMAN EMPIRE AS ENVISIONED BY UKIP.

I never said it did. I was simply trying to point out that making snide comments about Britain's imperialist past was somewhat hypocritical of you, when Germany's is little better.

Missing the point, again. Where the fuck does the EU resemble a German Empire in any way, shape or form?

Well, nowadays, the term 'empire' doesn't necessarily mean a 19th/early 20th century colonial empire. People talk about the 'American Empire', in the sense that America dominates the West, and arguably the rest of the world, in terms of military and economic power and cultural influence. I assume that when Starglider talked about 'German empire building of the European Union' he was talking about Germany's economic power within the European Union. For example, Germany is the largest contributor to the EU's budget, and has been seen as a leader in efforts to solve the European Debt Crisis.

[Thanas]

Look at the dates and then tell me honestly that this has anything to do with the EU GERMAN EMPIRE AS ENVISIONED BY UKIP.

I never said it did. I was simply trying to point out that making snide comments about Britain's imperialist past was somewhat hypocritical of you, when Germany's is little better.

Really now? The death caused by the German Empire were a mere fraction of what occurred under British rule and unlike British rule they don't have much consequences nowadays.

Well, nowadays, the term 'empire' doesn't necessarily mean a 19th/early 20th century colonial empire. People talk about the 'American Empire', in the sense that America dominates the West, and arguably the rest of the world, in terms of military and economic power and cultural influence. I assume that when Starglider talked about 'German empire building of the European Union' he was talking about Germany's economic power within the European Union. For example, Germany is the largest contributor to the EU's budget, and has been seen as a leader in efforts to solve the European Debt Crisis.

The word Empire denotes that one nation can dictate every important thing to others. If Germany had this power, the EU would look very different from what it actually is. Using the word "German Empire" for the EU is just fucking stupid.

[His Divine Shadow]

This was a local article, google translating it into english gives a somewhat readable result
http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2015/04/2 ... arde-riket

Ignore the inflammatory headline, it isn't meant in that way. It talks about how germany, since the german empire, has dominated europe and its politics and economics and the d-mark and the reasons for the euro and how germany has ended up in a position where it gets these imperial remarks again, even though one can say its intentions where the opposite. It also acknowledges that Germany does have power now and it dominates the eurozones economies, and some of the euro related policies favored by germany helped it while worsening it for countries like Finland and greece and other peripheral countries.

[K. A. Pital]

What's this, inconsistency in the far-left mind meld?

I am quite possibly the only far-left person here, you dumbass. So inconsistency between myself and others, who are not far-left, is perfectly normal. Do get this into your overloaded head somehow, or at least try to. That being said, I would say Britain should leave the EU if it so desires, just as any other nation (Greece and the others, too).

[Thanas]

This was a local article, google translating it into english gives a somewhat readable result
http://svenska.yle.fi/artikel/2015/04/2 ... arde-riket

Ignore the inflammatory headline, it isn't meant in that way. It talks about how germany, since the german empire, has dominated europe and its politics and economics and the d-mark and the reasons for the euro and how germany has ended up in a position where it gets these imperial remarks again, even though one can say its intentions where the opposite. It also acknowledges that Germany does have power now and it dominates the eurozones economies, and some of the euro related policies favored by germany helped it while worsening it for countries like Finland and greece and other peripheral countries.

The article is little different from what has been posted before here, and seems almost an exact copy - if not outright plagiarized - of an article in the new statesman that was written several years ago. I wonder how the editors let them get away with this.

In any case, regarding the article, this is not an empire. That is being the largest member of a union. For example, if Germany were to get Imperial powers, there never would have been a Euro in the first place as we loved the D-mark. There would have been no bailout of the Greeks the way it went down, there would be no quantitive easing and in fact the whole currency union would be vastly different. We certainly would not be as powerless as we currently are to push Greece towards enacting reforms. If we were an Empire, we would order them to reform and reform they would - immediately, without negotiation for fear of the consequences.

[bilateralrope]

The main reason I'm against PR is because it doesn't allow me to elect and have my own MP.

Mixed-member proportional representation is a PR system with local MPs.

So this is suggesting some elected MPs in the house of commons don't get a vote? That's better, but not by a lot. How do you decide which MPs get the vote?

The party vote determines how many seats each party gets in total. They fill their seat allocation first with any MPs that won an electorate seat, then fill the rest from their list. There total number of seats in parliament is higher than the number of electorates, so each party will usually win more seats than electorates.

All MPs that get a seat get 1 vote. There is also an expectation that all MPs vote the way their party wishes. The role of the electorate MP is to bring the issues of their local electorate to their parties attention and influence the parties polices.

When an MP is running for an electorate and also on the party list, they can lose the electorate and still get in. So, if they were running for an electorate that they wanted to win*, they will still care about it afterwards, so going to them can sometimes be more effective than going to your official electorate MP.

*Some MPs 'running' for an electorate only do so to promote their party for the party vote. They do not intend to win the electorate.


Oh and one aspect of coalition governments in New Zealand is that because coalitions are expected, we usually know which parties will try to form a coalition together before voting day. You know that voting for party x is really a vote for the x, y coalition. Though how much the agreement favours x over y depends on how many seats they each have, so the decision between voting for x and y is still important. Especially on issues where coalition partners disagree and the bill passing through parliament or not depends on what the opposition parties think of that issue.

[Crazedwraith]

Something I didn't realise there have actually been protests about The tory victory as well as being anti-austerity.

Guardian Article

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yes, complete with thorwing smoke bombs and traffic cones at the police and vandalising the Women in WW2 Memorial. An excellent way to make their case I'm sure.

[madd0ct0r]

My Facebook feed has been full of it- outside of London, it seems only Cardiff had any sort of protest.

I didn't attend, because the day after the election is not the time, but part of me hopes Camerons lot will treat it as a warning.

Unfortunately, I think they may just see it as an excuse.

Ids is back (fired three times for incompetence). Human rights act to be rolled back, 12billion further cuts and the constituenc Borders to be changed in the cons favour

[Zaune]

Yes, complete with thorwing smoke bombs and traffic cones at the police and vandalising the Women in WW2 Memorial. An excellent way to make their case I'm sure.

I refer you to the thread about what's going on in Baltimore. You think even the Guardian would have bothered to give any column inches to a peaceful protest? If it bleeds it leads.

Also, who's up for a pool bet on how many posts to go before someone accuses Thanas of being a Nazi?

[Tribble]

Here's the Tory "policy" for human rights:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/int ... l-document

To briefly sum up:

a) they will repeal the current Human Rights Act, and replace it with a "Bill of Rights" which will only allow for the absolute minimum required under the European Convention on Human Rights
b) they will make it so that the European Court of Human Rights is "advisory only"
c) if the Council of Europe disagrees with their new polices, they will withdraw European Convention on Human Rights altogether
d) they will essentially try to veto any attempts by the EU to join the European Convention on Human Rights, so that the European Court of Human Rights will not have any effect on UK policy

Stuff like this reminds me to be very thankful that Canada decided to adopt a written constitution and charter of rights. Otherwise all it takes is for a party to get 50% + 1 of the seats, and they can do whatever the hell they want. "Human rights?! Bah! Who needs those?!" Our current Prime Minister is no doubt extremely jealous of David Cameron atm.

Given that they have only been in office for a couple of days and they are already in the process repealing things like the Human Rights Act, I wonder what else the citizens of the UK can look forward to over the next few years?

[jwl]

Farage UKIP leader again as UKIP reject his resignation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... eader.html
Norman Lamb announces run for Lib Dem leader:
http://news.sky.com/story/1482022/norma ... ership-bid
Liz Kendall announces run for Labour leadership:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32676664

[madd0ct0r]

The day after the police stop a violent. Protest against the tories, 30000 police march in protest at the cuts

[The Romulan Republic]

While I support the rights of protesters and the right to conduct peaceful protests (and only peaceful protesters), I personally find it in poor taste, even undemocratic, to protest the result of a legitimate election. Sometimes you loose an election. That's part of democracy.

[ray245]

The rights of minorities do need to be protected at times as well Modern democracy isn't a winners take all system.

[The Romulan Republic]

Of course not. That's why we have a constitution with a bill of rights. But protesting a legitimate election is essentially saying the election is invalid because you lost.

Edited because I mistook this for a different thread and screwed up.

Further edit: And yes, I am aware England does not have a constitution with a bill of rights, so I can at least understand people being peeved on that score.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Actually, we do[/] have a Bill or Rights, from 1690 or so (IIRC, certainly late 17th century, after the Glorious Revolution). I can't recall offhand what is specifically included, but it doesn't cover constitutional stuff (there's a few other Acts from that era that cover it).

[Pelranius]

Farage UKIP leader again as UKIP reject his resignation:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... eader.html

Wow, so did Farage pre-arrange for that outcome in the event he lost, or is the UKIP's leadership roster really that thin?

[Tribble]

Actually, we do[/] have a Bill or Rights, from 1690 or so (IIRC, certainly late 17th century, after the Glorious Revolution). I can't recall offhand what is specifically included, but it doesn't cover constitutional stuff (there's a few other Acts from that era that cover it).

True, but one of the potential problems with an unwritten constitution is that there is basically only one rule: at the end of the day parliament is supreme, and it can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. It could just as easily repeal the Bill of Rights you listed as it is repealing the Human Rights Act right now.

[madd0ct0r]

Technically the Queen outranks them, but we know what happened last time a royal tried that...

[Crazedwraith]

While I support the rights of protesters and the right to conduct peaceful protests (and only peaceful protesters), I personally find it in poor taste, even undemocratic, to protest the result of a legitimate election. Sometimes you loose an election. That's part of democracy.

Well that's what I thought when I saw it headlined that way. But when I read the articles it was more of an anti-austerity protest. Not 'you shouldn't be in government get out' so much as 'okay you're in government, please reconsider this shit you plan to do'.