Can't fault them
A pretty accurate summary!
As Blighty staggers today towards a possible LabLibDem alliance, or maybe an unholy ConservoDemocrat pact, the BBC has been busy putting together an in-depth analysis of Gordon Brown's legacy, as he prepares to to the right thing take the long walk into political oblivion. We have to say, it's one of the Beeb's better pieces …
I was going to say if it was Big Brother, we'd have at least seen some tits. But on reflection, this government has provided us with a great deal of tits. Big fleshy ones.
They say once you've had rack there's no going back, but I don't think I'd like to see any of those lot return.
They are missing one thing.
I think thats the right amount of zeros for the national debt, a thousand billion then a trillion, anyone know what comes after a Trillion as i'm guess the Lib/Lab alliance will just keep borrowing. They remind me of my sister and her store cards she just keeps getting more and more saying she'll pay it all back by 2015, i have my doubts.
After trillion it's quadrillion then quintillion, etc etc. But yes, this whole drive to reduce the public debt will never actually happen as is needed under Labour - they'll get it down to what it was a few short years ago and say 'enoughs enough' without tackling it all. Personally I'm of the opinion that Britain MUST in future make sure that at least every second year it has a budget surplus come what may. That wouldn't atall be easy, but otherwise we're just starting a cycle of:
Gov hires loads more workers (from managers to the actual useful staff) --> Deficit gets really high --> Gov fires most useful workers but keeps bureaucrats --> Deficit reduces --> Gov hires --> ...
"All political lives end in failure". Gordon's career was unique in that it began in failure at Granita, continued to fail all the way through the middle with PFI as the Enron Chancellor and then ended in failure in the only leadership election he faced. If only there were a FAIL icon ...
So I'll hijack it to point out that we are now seeing the true face of proportional representation. At the moment Clegg doesn't give a flying monkey's about the well being of the country, all he cares about is getting PR and he will swap his alliance at the drop of a pin to achieve this. The mere mention of him having talks with Labour caused the pound to devalue and the stock market to fall but he's oblivious to everything except his, and the lib-dems, only way of ever getting a say in Government. If PR is ever adopted every parliament from then on will be a hung one with the tail wagging the dog with thaemain problem being that there will be one dog but many tails.
BTW, the BBC have been far too lenient with their summary of Gordon Brown, yet another example of their left wing bias
Give someone a majority and they'll go to war. A balanced parliament will be a pragmatic one. Imagine Bush trying to push around everyone and not just Blair. A balanced parliament will prevent knee jerk reactions, rash decisions. The only people to benefit from big changes are the money makers. Bad decision sell, good decision buy. No news is good news. Politics should be bland. Inclusive but bland.
The markets are hovering over the 'buy' button. Same thing happened with the Europe bail out package. Big news big profit.
What in the name of God has you so convinced that simple majorities are any better? It just leads to the playground-level bickering that passes for politics in this country as it is. Personally, I find it astonishing that politicians on the election trail actually had the balls to suggest that co-operation of the kind required under a hung parliament would be a problem. I'm sure that nuanced and subtle approach works excellently in foreign diplomacy.
As I've pointed out before, if it weren't for PR the Israeli/Arab problem might have been solved years ago. As it is the extreme orthodox religious parties with little popular support prostitute their vote to whoever will support their own political agenda.
And as AC wrote shortly after you, would you like the BNP to have disproportionate influence over policy matters in return for support for their agenda?
Graham, please state your source for this definite proposal, because until someone in a position to actually action anything proposes it then it is about as much of a proposal as an election promise is a promise.
Even with STV or ATV you can still end up with candidates who got a higher number of votes as the first choice losing in preference to one who got less votes, where's the fairness in that?
Simple majorities may work in the playground, but a PR system allows more voices to be heard, surely not a bad feature of a tiny community that controls the proles? The compromises, bickering and shameful deeds go on but are often more visible because of the many spotlights trained upon them
These are the election results
Now assume that something absolutely needs to be passed by the conservatives, doesn't matter what it is but from time to time it happens, why not say no income tax after the first 250,000 GBP. Unpopular with the general public but whenever have politicans been bothered about that?.
Now in a PR system each party gets a fair share that's a guarenteed 36% for and 29% against to start with even though it would benefit many Labour MPs. The Liberals join the Tories and the others are roughly split taking it to 65% for and 33% against.
However, for this particular proposal a two thirds majority is needed, you get the BNP, who have been patiently waiting for such a decisive vote, controlling the outcome and they want compulsory sterilization of immigrants in exchange for their support.
Maybe the Tories can live with that and sneak in a last minute amendment.
So much for more voices being heard when it's the smallest that calls the shots.
I'm not arguing that first past the post is ideal but it's far better than having a government controlled by extremists of any persuasion.
I thought it was blatantly obvious that it was an hypothetical case. However, it does happen, will happen and almost has happened with Clegg trying to play off both sides to further his own political agenda to the detriment of the country.
You seem to have overlooked my comment that with STV a first choice candidate with more first round votes can lose out to one with less.
One other thing about ?TV, once my preferred candidate has reached the required number of votes the transferred votes might go to someone I definitely would not want to be in parliament.
Don't think anyone will be forcing BNP MPs on any constituency anytime soon.
The three main proposals, in ascending order of proportionality, are:
- Alternative Vote (AV) - retains the 'constituency MP' but, instead of Xs on ballot papers, voters get to rank their preferences 1,2,3 etc. If one candidate gets over 50% of first choices then it's game over. Otherwise, the last placed candidate is eliminated and those ballots naming him/her as first choice are recounted, this time looking at the second choice. This repeats until one candidate gets over the magic 50%. So, unless BNP can get a *lot* of first and second choice votes, it's unlikely they'll get in
- AV Plus - proposed by the Roy Jenkins review way back in 1998. Same as AV, but the 'plus' is a second vote for party, with top-up candidates drawn from party lists. This would probably add one or two BNP MPs from a party list, but they wouldn't be aligned to any particular constituency.
- Single Transferable Vote (STV) - this would likely do away with the current constituencies as they stand and use much larger super-constituencies (maybe aligned to county or city boundaries?), with candidates returned from party lists based on the share of the vote in the super-constituency. In this case you might have a constituency the size of, say, Nottinghamshire, with 20 Con, 18 Lab, 16 LibDem, and maybe one BNP
Whatever your opinions about the BNP, surely those people who do vote for them have the right to have their vote fairly accounted for. If that means BNP MPs, so be it.
No Paris gag, I'm afraid.
He wrecked the pension system for all private (ie non state) pension schemes in the country.
He abolished boom and bust - look he told me so, so it must be right.
He claimed he was responsible for the massive growth in banking profits during his time as chancellor (ie minister for banking) and so can not claim he wasn't also responsible for the crash.
His lasting legacy though is the £3,000 of debt that he has saddled every man, woman and child in this country with.
Hard to choose whether him or Blair were worse for the country, but at least Blair has largely gone.
Jimmy Floyd, it is catastrophically more worse than is ever admitted less everyone realise that debt is invented to enslave the masses in just the same way as money is created out of thin air...... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/a-nation-in-denial-and-deeper-in-debt/story-e6frg6zo-1225864237874
Which is what Labour have been hiding?
The national debt as a percentage of GDP was around 45% when the tories were turfed out, this was reduced by labour to around 35% the global economic crisis has sent this rocketing to about 60%
I'm sure you're right when you blame Brown for the global economic crisis, no doubt he caused Greece to become bancrupt too and the collapse of the sub prime market in the states, no doubt he also shat in your vegetable patch (rather than next doors cat).
By all means restrict your understanding and research to the Sun and Daily Mail, but don't expect everybody else to.
It's just like the 1970s all over again.
All we need now is some half-mad woman with steely determination (see what I did there?) and things will be following a well worn path. I even noticed the other day that our Elm trees are under fresh attack from a new disease. Let's just hope that shoulder pads and crazy hair styles aren't going to make a come back.
Thanks to that fat scottish Nixon lookalike I could now face 5 years in jail for possessing a certain herb.
I can 100% blame Brown for this, Blair was against re-classification (as were most scientific advisers and anyone with half a brain), but bigoted Brown went full steam ahead with reclassification.
Is the country better off ? No
Is it harder to score ? No - and the quality seems to have increased
Has the price gone up ? No
Has it sorted the gang problem ? No
Did it make the government more popular ? Look at the election results.
Can I face more jail time for carrying a herb than a knife ? Yes
Hey maybe if he was watching the economy rather than giving a f*ck about what people want to smoke in their spare time the country wouldn't be so much in fail right now.
"I reckon we should make it mandatory for all politicians!" .... Anonymous Coward Posted Tuesday 11th May 2010 15:56 GMT
The Honourable Members of the House and Asylum go very strangely quiet whenever anyone mentions random drugs testing [Stop and Swab Confrontations] of figures paid for from the public purse and especially those with their sticky little fingers always in the Public Purse, which you must have noticed is never Full and always just above Empty and needing Filling.
With Widespread Random Stop and Search Powers everywhere else, with no Real Reason for Suspicion other than ones apparent Non Occupation or Big Easy Cool or Loud Arrogant Manner, is it probably a Prime Location for Addicts and Pushers of Substance Abuse for its Seriously Deluded Self Serving Rhetoric ...... Sweet and Sticky Candy Floss Spun in a Weird Cabinet Machine.
And remember to never forget ..... Only Fools play by Rules and Regulations dreamt up and implemented by Fools on Others. And Beware the SMARTer Players whom you will never See Coming to Spirit Everything away.
Which does make one wonder where all the trillions of money has gone, which has just been recently invented and quantitatively eased into Bankers accounts and which was supposed to be keeping sinking ships afloat rather than feathering Cuckoos Nests and supporting Ivory Towers?
Our Divine Moderatrix is fully sane. She is the epitome of sanity, the standard by which all others are measured. I will not, however, rush to her defense, as she is fully capable of defending herself against all comers.
Dealing with Register readership has acted as a vaccine.
I gotta admit that as a Yank, I'm not especially up on the goings on of things on in the political front in those "other" countries, so I always appreciate it when some "respected source" like the BBC can fill me in on what I'm missing, but I gotta say I was shocked. Don't you guys have plagiarism laws? This report is WORD FOR WORD from that illustrious tome, "The Collected Wisdom of George W. Bush". Have you no pride? Or were they perhaps separated at birth? Makes one wonder...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021