Ding Dong, the Witch is dead...

[Wij]

So yanks can't poke fun at our politics but we can poke fun at theirs ?

 

[MrHorus]

There is *ONE* person who can choose a Prime Minister and that is Queen Elizabeth II. She chooses the leader of the dominant party to be Prime Minister. If there is no party with clear dominance, she chooses the party leader most likely to command the confidence of the Commons.

That is incorrect.

She has ALWAYS invited the person most likely to command the confidence of the House. For decades that person has also been the leader of the party with the most seats by dint of having a de facto majority, but that's not a rule.

There is nothing that says she MUST invite the leader of the "dominant party" - it has always been the person most likely to command the confidence of the House.

The fact that the person has also in recent times been the leader of the largest party is lucky convenience.

 

[MrHorus]

I wasn't sure which election thread to put this in, and I know they're not really qualified to lecture us on elections after the Florida thing a few years ago but here is one Americans viewpoint.

"So let me get this right....you had an election, one party won 20% more votes than anyone else but he hasn't won. The guy that lost by the 2nd biggest swing ever just turned up to work as Prime Minister the following morning like nothing had happened and refused to leave. He then started flirting with the guy that really lost desperately pandering to get his support even at the expense of his own promises.

No, not at all.

Clearly the American is a retard that cannot distinguish between a Parliamentary system and a Presidential one.

He should look into the Privy Council and it's history and conventions in order to understand why Ministers of State retain their jobs...

The real loser then started talking to the winner about helping them win better, but also talking to the other loser.

As above, it depends what you mean by "winner" and "loser".

Coalition governments are the norm pretty much everywhere EXCEPT for the US, the UK and single-party states.

Not that I'm trying to draw parallels between the UK, the US and single-party states - I'm just stating that we are the exception rather than the rule.

So they're going to have to let every little fringe party hold your country to ransom just so that the losing party can win because the party that won hasn't won but two parties that lost can win? Then if the two losing parties, and 3/4/5 other parties all form a committee government, the least loser will resign and you get prime minister that no-one knew about and didn't speak at any national debate??"

No, for all the reasons above.

This is why Americans should STFU about foreign policy.

 

[Scouse]

I think my real bugbear with PR systems is coalitions - they give the little parties that dont represent the mainstream too much power.

No. PR systems give small parties that don't represent the "mainstream" a proportional amount of power.

Our FPTP system gives all the power to someone who only a 3rd of the country votes for. It's sickening really. Always has been.

Yes, PR has issues (and as someone pointed out - it's actually mathematically impossible to have a completely fair system) - but a more granular governmental system should, in theory, provide better governance.

 

[Wij]

No, not at all.

Clearly the American is a retard that cannot distinguish between a Parliamentary system and a Presidential one.

He should look into the Privy Council and it's history and conventions in order to understand why Ministers of State retain their jobs...



As above, it depends what you mean by "winner" and "loser".

Coalition governments are the norm pretty much everywhere EXCEPT for the US, the UK and single-party states.

Not that I'm trying to draw parallels between the UK, the US and single-party states - I'm just stating that we are the exception rather than the rule.




No, for all the reasons above.

This is why Americans should STFU about foreign policy.

Yes. Ban satire by anyone foreign !!!

 

[Scouse]

And this is why we all think the american is a retard.

Actually, I thought he'd put it quite nicely. Well done old yankee

The only thing is, the "winner" didn't win either. There were three losers.

 

[rynnor]

No. PR systems give small parties that don't represent the "mainstream" a proportional amount of power.

It does when a major party is short of seats for a majority - they then wield a dis-proportionate amount of influence which is counter to democracy.

 

[Scouse]

It does when a major party is short of seats for a majority - they then wield a dis-proportionate amount of influence which is counter to democracy.

True. But this is exactly what's happening right now under FPTP anyway.

And, tbfh, Lib Dem's have never had any power. Which is a bit of a disgrace since vastly more people vote for them than the number of seats they get. From a personal point of view this is a bit of payback for 100 years of being denied anything

Yup. I voted Lib Dem. First time ever tho...

 

[Chilly]

The public vote in the US has no legal link to who actually gets elected as president. The electoral college TEND to vote as the people instruct at the ballot but it's all just tradition.

 

[MrHorus]

The public vote in the US has no legal link to who actually gets elected as president. The electoral college TEND to vote as the people instruct at the ballot but it's all just tradition.

Fair point.

I'd expect their to be protests and legal challenges if the Electoral College didn't vote in accordance with how their electorate did though.

I agree though - it's just convention and tradition.

 

[ECA]

The public vote in the US has no legal link to who actually gets elected as president. The electoral college TEND to vote as the people instruct at the ballot but it's all just tradition.

Actually it varies from state to state as to whether the college is required to vote at the direction of the people or not.

 

[Scouse]

Fantastic. I bet Adam Boulton has been waiting 13 years to have a proper pop at that twat live on telly. He wouldn't have dared before now.

For some strange reason, when it gets a bit argy-bargy towards the end the video stops for me. I've tried it serveral times in different browsers but can't get it to complete. Censored?

Either way, shouting means you lose the argument in the majority of people's eyes. Shame really as Campbell was probably giggling inside.

 

[DaGaffer]

For some strange reason, when it gets a bit argy-bargy towards the end the video stops for me. I've tried it serveral times in different browsers but can't get it to complete. Censored?

Either way, shouting means you lose the argument in the majority of people's eyes. Shame really as Campbell was probably giggling inside.

Oh I'm sure. But when you've had to politely nod as someone lies to your face for thirteen years solid and then condescends to tell you what you're thinking, I think I'd snap as well. Would have been even better if he'd smacked the smug sack of shit.

 

[MrHorus]

Actually it varies from state to state as to whether the college is required to vote at the direction of the people or not.

They are all "required" in the sense that there would be public outcry if they did not.

What differs is that some states make it a criminal offense not to vote as previously pledged whereas some do not.

 

[Gumbo]

19:15 and I'm watching the door of Number 10 on Sky News just after the official cars have drawn up just down the road to collect him.

Minutes to go and one of the worst Prime Ministers this country has seen will be leaving Downing Street for good.

Can't fucking wait.

 

[Embattle]

19:15 and I'm watching the door of Number 10 on Sky News just after the official cars have drawn up just down the road to collect him.

Minutes to go and one of the worst Prime Ministers this country has seen will be leaving Downing Street for good.

Can't fucking wait.

I don't hold that view, but it seems to of become entrenched in quite a few people.

 

[Gumbo]

I don't hold that view, but it seems to of become entrenched in quite a few people.

Alright, I'll bite, give me a redeeming feature/accomplishment of his premiership.

 

[Tom]

When he left, I was reminded of that bit in Return of the King, where Frodo exclaims "It's GONE!"

 

[Ch3tan]

Yeah, I was beginning to feel that the only way we were going to get rid of him was to form a fellowship and take him to Iceland.

 

[Deebs]

This is fucking awesome, am so glad that fucknut is finally out and gone for good. Wanker!

 

[Embattle]

Alright, I'll bite, give me a redeeming feature/accomplishment of his premiership.

My point was that I suspect if you look back there are certainly other PMs that wouldn't stack up well but knowledge is limited about those that have come and gone before our time, someone like Neville Chamberlain for example pops into my mind. Although this also comes from a personal prespective, it also comes from your personal situation as to how bad one is for you.

The other thing is I don't think many people would believe that any PM from any party goes in to the job to make the public annoyed or worse off, their intention is always to improve public life. Sometimes sadly they are a bit delued when it comes to political and public realities which has never seen more scrutiny from media attack dogs. In this area Brown was far to fallible and didn't quite have the Mr Sheen effect of the previous man he had done a deal with, Tony Blair but then it might of been better all round if he had called an election right afterwards.

I also tend to think that in general people are rather fed up with politics as a whole, with the expenses scandal being the real low point.

Personally I see the job as PM as being utterly horrible and under paid, even the best still get a kicking on something.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Okay so STV would suck nearly as much as FPTP, so what about the AV system being offered rather than fully blown PR?

the who the what now? please for the non British here.

What I never got is why not a mix between area representive and nationwide populare vote. That way you might get best of two ways.

For me the only redeeming fact of Brown is that he aint Mayor..

 

[xane]

This is the exact opposite of what the voting system gives us.

Incorrect.

The voting system is not intended as a vote for political parties, but for individual representatives, as long as you calculate using "party" totals it will always appear unbalanced, but that is alien to the whole concept of a representative democracy.

FPTP is perfect for voting for people, STV would be even better.

Don't screw up a perfectly capable voting system, get rid of political parties.

Under PR you get allocated "party seats", i.e. people ruling over us who no-one voted for, you cannot call that a "better" democracy, if you want that, go the whole distance, vote for a "president" and let him decide who to put in the House of Commons.

 

[Gumbo]

My point was that I suspect if you look back there are certainly other PMs that wouldn't stack up well but knowledge is limited about those that have come and gone before our time, someone like Neville Chamberlain for example pops into my mind. Although this also comes from a personal prespective, it also comes from your personal situation as to how bad one is for you.

The other thing is I don't think many people would believe that any PM from any party goes in to the job to make the public annoyed or worse off, their intention is always to improve public life. Sometimes sadly they are a bit delued when it comes to political and public realities which has never seen more scrutiny from media attack dogs. In this area Brown was far to fallible and didn't quite have the Mr Sheen effect of the previous man he had done a deal with, Tony Blair but then it might of been better all round if he had called an election right afterwards.

I also tend to think that in general people are rather fed up with politics as a whole, with the expenses scandal being the real low point.

Personally I see the job as PM as being utterly horrible and under paid, even the best still get a kicking on something.

Excellent, you couldn't give me a single redeeming feature/accomplishment of his premiership. Also, I didn't say he was the worst, just one of the worst. It's a shame, as chancellor and then PM, he had opportunities that others in his position could only have dreamed of. He then fucked up every single one of them. I'm looking forward to a generation of Labour being in the wilderness now.

 

[Ch3tan]

Gigglebox (UK) - Home

 

[Deebs]

Gigglebox (UK) - Home

Fuck me Ch3t, I work with the fucker who owns and builds that site. Tomorrow I shall have to buy him a coffee for being linked from FH. You owe me bigtime now. You shit.

 

[Ch3tan]

Even better, I stole the link of the comment he made on your facebook

 

[Deebs]

I know, you c u n t. I am coming for you......

 

[Ch3tan]

Cheeky fuck, asking him for a coffee!

 

[Tom]

Fuck sake, I wish they'd all **** off with this "progressive" crap. The word you're looking for is "socialist" you pricks.