BeardedGamerUK wrote:The same way Brian Adams was at number one for a year but you cant find a single person who bought the single. People loved her at the time and voted blindly for her. |
Ed Miliband the next PM for the United Kingdom • Page 4
-
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 16 years ago -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoDougs wrote:
"better" economic data that is still worse than what they inherited, only with even more pain for family budgets, added hammering of the most vulnerable, and massive public service cuts.
Just can't see EM winning or even Labour having a minority lead. My instinct says Tory majority or another Coalition if they don't want to lead a minority Govt. The planets are aligning with better economic data in the run up.
It irks me when the Tories and Lib Dem's in government keep saying the economy has "turned a corner" when it's still rather worse than what they started with. It's like saying "hey, vote for us! We fucked up a little bit less this year!"
But then, that's what MOST governments seem to do in order to spin good out of bad. -
nickthegun wrote:
She had the 'balls' to stand up against the unions and not be held to ransom.
BeardedGamerUK wrote:
The same way Brian Adams was at number one for a year but you cant find a single person who bought the single.
@kalel How do you explain Thatcher then. Everybody hated her or at least said they did and she kept winning General Elections :/
People loved her at the time and voted blindly for her. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 16 years agoYes, thats what the idiots of the time thought. -
The fact she was a Hayek sucking monster helped too, apparently. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agonickthegun wrote:
Yes, thats what the idiots of the time thought..gif)
-
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoLetsGo wrote:
And this is what almost always happens in FPTP when you have more than 2 candidates on a ballot, which is why it isn't a fair system. People get into power despite hardly anyone voting for them or wanting them in office.
In AV, you can win without getting the most votes, it's silly.
You made it pretty clear at the time that you were basing your decision on media reporting and what the No campaign was saying rather than actually doing much of your own fact checking or research.
But anyway, I was just pointing out that your predictions about the outcome of voting don't have the best history of accuracy.
Edited by darkmorgado at 17:47:58 24-09-2013 -
darkmorgado wrote:
You should read up on what FPTP actually is, here's a summary;
LetsGo wrote:
And this is what almost always happens in FPTP when you have more than 2 candidates on a ballot, which is why it isn't a fair system. People get into power despite hardly anyone voting for them or wanting them in office.
In AV, you can win without getting the most votes, it's silly.
You made it pretty clear at the time that you were basing your decision on media reporting and what the No campaign was saying rather than actually doing much of your own fact checking or research.
But anyway, I was just pointing out that your predictions about the outcome of voting don't have the best history of accuracy.
FPTP - the person who receives the most votes is elected, simples.
AV - someone who doesn't receives the most 'first pref' votes can still win, this is wrong. Why should second pref. votes count?! I don't want a 'well if he doesn't win, I guess this one will do!' vote! -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoBut not the biggest proportion of the vote, numb nuts. So they can get elected even when most people didn't vote for them - THAT'S the problem with FPTP. People frequently getting elected despite the fact that hardly anyone voted for them.
This was frequently explained to you, at length, by many other people the other year and you singularly failed to comprehend it then and just kept parroting the bullshit that the No campaign was telling you, so at least you're being consistent I suppose. Perhaps given that, it's not surprising you've been so easily swayed into think Ed Milliband would be an amazing Prime Minister and a superb public servant based on one speech in an afternoon that was worryingly light on any sort of detail and high on populist rhetoric. You keep confusing "the most votes" with "most of the votes". How else do you think governments get in despite having far less than 50% of the vote share? We haven't had a government with more than 50% in decades.
FPTP is widely regarded as one of the weakest voting systems there is, as it doesn't reflect the will of the people. That's the point.
Edited by darkmorgado at 18:59:26 24-09-2013 -
oceanmotion 17,358 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years agoHow would the electric and gas freeze even work.
Surely the companies will adjust prices higher to compensate, take advantage and probably even lump the long term high price as the governments fault while reaping the benefits. -
Trowel 24,512 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 18 years agoSo, today's policies:
"The next Labour government will freeze gas and electricity prices until the start of 2017. Your bills will be frozen, benefitting millions of families and millions of businesses. That is what I mean by a government that fights for you. That's what I mean when I say: Britain can do better than this."
So what will happen to prices during the next 18 months or so until the election, and what will happen to them after 2017? There's an irony going up against privatised utilities which have developed into companies with ruthlessly efficient track records when it comes to reactive and protective price models. I'm all for tougher regulation when it comes to energy prices, but is this anything but a flash sale to get Labour through the front door?
He admitted "the companies won't like it because it will cost them money. But they have been overcharging people for so long because the market does not work. And we need to press the reset button."
Labour calculates that such a freeze, which would be one of the most direct state interventions in the energy market for many years and echoes Labour's windfall tax on privatised utilities after the 1997 election, would save consumers £120 over the 20 months on average, and businesses £1,800. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agooceanmotion wrote:
I think it will be a cap on how much they will be allowed to adjust prices, so it won't be a case where they will continue to reap the massive profits, but switching the source of the money from public to government. So presumably a change to the price regulator, as they're the ones in charge of setting maximum rate increases, afaik.
How would the electric and gas freeze even work.
Surely the companies will adjust prices higher to compensate, take advantage and probably even lump the long term high price as the governments fault while reaping the benefits.
So it would be fairly cost-free on government. It would just mean less of the price gouging and wild profiteering over something you don't have a choice of using or not.
Now, if he can break the stranglehold that the water companies hold over different regions so people can better change supplier and introduce some actual competition in the market, then he might be getting somewhere.
Edited by darkmorgado at 18:54:19 24-09-2013 -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years ago@Trowel
That's simple. They'll be able to claim that the current government did nothing to tackle out-of-control price increases far more disproportionate than anything they were already implementing. Presumably they could also set a hard cap on the price, and not just the rate increases. That wouldn't go down well at all though in some quarters as it would be seen as a step too far in direct market intervention. -
Dougs 100,414 posts
Seen 16 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoLawyers will be the only winners in this... -
\o/ -
Humperfunk 8,634 posts
Seen 46 minutes ago
Registered 9 years agoMiliband reminds me of Homer as Sanitation Commissioner. -
Cameron is like a joke. Archetypal clueless toff. Some of you actually prefer him to Miliband? -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoHumperfunk wrote:
To be honest, I'm a lot more worried about Ed Balls being in charge of the public purse strings. I'd much rather someone who actually seems to have an understanding of what they're doing, like Alistair Darling (who actually commands a lot of respect amongst the politicians - most of the mud-slinging about the economy under Labour is directed at Gordon Brown's tenure and Ed Balls)
Miliband reminds me of Homer as Sanitation Commissioner. -
darkmorgado wrote:
You do know I wasn't the only one backing FPTP over AV on the forum don't you?!
But not the biggest proportion of the vote, numb nuts. So they can get elected even when most people didn't vote for them - THAT'S the problem with FPTP. People frequently getting elected despite the fact that hardly anyone voted for them.
This was frequently explained to you, at length, by many other people the other year and you singularly failed to comprehend it then and just kept parroting the bullshit that the No campaign was telling you, so at least you're being consistent I suppose. Perhaps given that, it's not surprising you've been so easily swayed into think Ed Milliband would be an amazing Prime Minister and a superb public servant based on one speech in an afternoon that was worryingly light on any sort of detail and high on populist rhetoric. You keep confusing "the most votes" with "most of the votes". How else do you think governments get in despite having far less than 50% of the vote share? We haven't had a government with more than 50% in decades.
FPTP is widely regarded as one of the weakest voting systems there is, as it doesn't reflect the will of the people. That's the point.
You can dress it up as much as you want but at the end of the day, the person with the MOST votes deserves to get elected and you refuse to accept that you are in the MINORITY with your view.
See... I can have a civilised discussion without getting abusive. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agorumblesushi wrote:
Well that's a bit like asking if someone would rather have the sleazy charmer from the posh family or the class wimp in charge. They're both terrible, just for different reasons.
Cameron is like a joke. Archetypal clueless toff. Some of you actually prefer him to Miliband? -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoLetsGo wrote:
The person with most of the votes deserves to win, as they have the support of the majority of the electorate. Unfortunately FPTP doesn't guarantee that outcome in anything beyond a 2-party system, which makes it unfit for purpose in anything resembling a truly democratic country.
You can dress it up as much as you want but at the end of the day, the person with the MOST votes deserves to get elected
/bangs head against wall
Edited by darkmorgado at 19:14:57 24-09-2013 -
darkmorgado wrote:
Wha are you talking about?! The person who receives the MOST VOTES ALWAYS WINS! Why can't you understand that.
LetsGo wrote:
The person with most of the votes deserves to win, as they have the support of the majority of the electorate. Unfortunately FPTP doesn't guarantee that outcome in anything beyond a 2-party system, which makes it unfit for purpose in anything resembling a truly democratic country.
You can dress it up as much as you want but at the end of the day, the person with the MOST votes deserves to get elected
/bangs head against wall
Let's say 10 people were voting;
Candidate A got 4 votes, B got 2, C got 2 and D got 2.
Yes... Overall the majority didn't vote for A, but because A got the MOST VOTES he deserves to win!
2nd pref votes are bullshit IMO. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years ago@LetsGo
So you honestly think that someone should be elected even when most people didn't vote for them?
How can you honestly think that's democratic? -
Clive_Dunn 4,862 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 18 years agoLetsGo wrote:
Al Gore phoned, he'd like his presidency back.
Wha are you talking about?! The person who receives the MOST VOTES ALWAYS WINS! -
Whenever I watch the PM's questions in the Commons I always end up laughing my head off.
All they do is throw cheap insults at each other and heckle the shit out of everyone.
I honestly can't imagine anyone watching them and being happy with who's running the country.
Last week was DC giving it the big one about EM being soft with the unions.
"He promised us Raging Bull, he gave us Chicken Run"
He probably spent around 4 hours thinking that one up, when really he should have been sorting out our involvement in Syria.
Bell ends. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years agoShikasama wrote:
I can't remember either, but I remember him being a fairly decent Chancellor and he's a well regarded economist.
Wasn't Alistair Darling a massive disaster as Transport Secretary?
Can't remember why but thats my only memory of him
Unlike Balls, Brown and Osborne. -
nickthegun 87,711 posts
Seen 25 minutes ago
Registered 16 years agooceanmotion wrote:
When they tried it in America they ended up with rolling blackouts. So a golf clap for that one.
How would the electric and gas freeze even work.
Surely the companies will adjust prices higher to compensate, take advantage and probably even lump the long term high price as the governments fault while reaping the benefits. -
spamdangled 31,803 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 13 years ago@TVoJ
To be fair, the bear-baiting in PMQs is in no way representative of how other house business is conducted in the commons, particularly in committee. It's just what most people take their impressions from as it's what the media focus on the most. You get the odd instance of a facepalm-worthy MP consistently being difficult (Peter Bone, for example), but they're normally kicked into touch by the speaker in most debates outside PMQs and their reputation for being "awkward" is why the mostly sit on the far benches on the edges of the house.
I feel really sorry for the Speaker sometimes, as he looks very frustrated and and pissed off at PMQs most weeks.
Edited by darkmorgado at 19:33:16 24-09-2013 -
So they're saying to themselves...
"Right everyone's going to be watching this afternoon. Let's all act like children to make the population think we're idiots. Then tomorrow when the cameras are off we'll roll our sleeves up and get to work"
If that is the area the media focus on, and they know it, why not try to give a better impression?
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
