quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: As though your conservatives are also a bunch of bible-thumping, big business loving, anti-immigration, gun loving, brainless, slack-jawed science-deniers that think the South shall rise again, men should control a woman's reproductive rights, civil rights are for those that can afford to buy them, suspects are tried in the media and a massive deficit can be solved by fabricated overseas conflicts and, of course, tax cuts for the uber-wealthy.
But I may be wrong- it could be exactly that way (in which case, God help you).
Tax-cuts for the uber-wealthy, yes. And gays shouldn't be allowed in bed & breakfasts, in case they infect the curtains or something.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Guardian readers...smug? Really? *deletes Guardian app on iPhone*
Actually I'm reminded of "Yes, Prime Minister" and the comments made on the papers there:
quote:Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Just saw the news - Clegg apparently now wants to hold formal talks with Labour, which would indicate that the Tory talks are not going swimmingly. Even more interesting, old Gordo has said he won't serve as PM except in a transitional capacity and is asking Labour to start a leadership contest.
All of which is immediately followed up by the BBC reporter saying that people could end up with a PM they didn't vote for. And I grind another layer of enamel off my teeth as I try to resist the temptation to shout at my monitor. Aaargh.
Good to see they over-estimated the impact on the markets though. Who would have thought that the near-meltdown of Greece would overshadow our problems eh?
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
I'm kind of glad in a way the Libs are swaerving away from the Tories. It might be interesting if they decide to go it alone and leave the others to the (electorate) dogs. But I susepct that there will be a feeble alliance with Labour.
The big question is what the country will make of the new PM, who nobody will have voted for (allbeit by proxy, assuming that most people (which I suspect is the case have presided over a polling station this time round and heard all the old biddies talking to themselves) vote for parties rather than people).
Fortunately there will be an election in six months, so it won't really matter!
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
(By the way, I did word that just to see if I could hear the grinding from down here in Kent)
We don't vote in a PM, and we never will. But I do wonder how many people do vote for a party and how many vote for a candidate.
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
posted
After asking around the office and relatives of people I know, a shockingly low percentage of people realise that they vote for an MP, and not a party. Which is why Labour managed to hold their seat in Liverpool despite the candidate never having been here until a month ago and having no idea who Bill Shankly is.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
^We've had longer to practice at being ill informed.
I happened to vote for an MP too, at least as far as I was concerned anyway. Sod the greater good of the country if it means we're going to get stuck with some useless tit as our local MP. I could give a crap what party they belonged to...within reason of course. It's not like I'd every vote for the likes of UKIP or the BNP.
This just in, the Tories are offering AV electoral reforms in lieu of PR. Sounds like a counter bid to Brown's promise to possible leave someday perhaps and I think it's a good compromise on the Conservatives' part.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: All of which is immediately followed up by the BBC reporter saying that people could end up with a PM they didn't vote for.
That does wind me up incredibly when the say that. Does no-one at the BBC understand that we live in a Parliamentary Democracy (and indeed all those in the Tory Party who have moaned on and on about Brown being unelected and will no doubt do the same with whoever his successor as Labour leader is), and we don't have a Presidental style of leadership directly elected by the electorate? Yes we'll have a PM we didn't vote for...it's just now, then, and as it has been with every election we've ever had! Personally I voted for an independent candidate for my MP...and I certainly don't recall the names Brown, Cameron or Clegg appearing on the ballot paper that was put in front of me last Thursday.
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm so glad that I'm not alone in finding that annoying! Like you I've never once voted for a PM - just for the local candidate. I can understand that some people might not have a grasp of how the system works, but I would expect major news outlets not to keep banging on the line about unelected PMs. It's fantastic that there have been investigations and witch-hunts about Blue Peter phone competitions but no-one is taking the BBC to task about consistently misrepresenting how our system of voting works at a time when people need to know how it works.
Another point of irritation came when the newspapers started to refer to Gordon Brown as somehow "squatting" in Number 10, as if he was unwilling to leave. After all, it's not as if the sitting PM has a *constitutional duty* to remain in office while a new government is formed, is it? In fact, he has the duty to try to form a government first - a process Clegg skipped, but now seems to be coming back to.
And for all the tantrum-throwing being indulged in by the right wing press, has no-one looked back to the last time this happened? Sitting PM whose party comes second in terms of seats...check. Remains in office following election of hung parliament despite rival party having more seats...check. Attempts to form government with Liberal party...check. Except, of course, the last time it happened the PM in question was a Tory.
It's fascinating that for all the poison being penned by the Daily Mail and for all the nasty journalism being pioneered by Kay Burley and Adam Boulton, no-one is making more of an effort to say "Hang on! This happened before! This unusual situation is not entirely without precedent! Let's look back at what happened then, and see if there are any conclusions that can be drawn as to what will happen now." Why is that? Because the press know that it would undercut the basis for their rage and invective against Gordon Brown.
Talking of tantrums, did anyone else see Adam Boulton lose it when talking to Alastair Campbell? Poor journalism, but cracking telly. Never thought I'd see the day when Campbell was thought to be the reasonable one.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
I did see someone mention yesterday (for possibly the first time) that no-one "voted" for John Major either, yet the Tories and Tory papers don't seem to be mentioning that.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not only did he have a go at Alastair Campbell, seems he also had a bit of a run-in with Ben Bradshaw as well. Has no-one at Sky News maybe thought that Boulton isn't exactly upholding the highest of standards when it comes to professionalism? That he might be...oh, I don't know, just a bit too quick to go huffy and angry?*
The Tory press isn't exactly covering itself with glory, but a gold star for the high-water mark of low standards (if you'll forgive me for such an awkward turn of phrase) surely has to go to the Sun, which had some interesting differences between the Scottish and English versions of their editorial.
* That's code for "completely mental" btw.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by FawnDoo: Another point of irritation came when the newspapers started to refer to Gordon Brown as somehow "squatting" in Number 10, as if he was unwilling to leave.
That really got me annoyed, partially because I minored in politics at university and as such know how the system works...and apparantly know it far better than anyone at the BBC. By that very arguement, was Ted Heath squatting in 1974 before he resigned? Or maybe the arguement doesn't apply when it's a Tory leader in Number 10. Same is true about the whole "unelected PM" thing upon a change of leader. Naturally leaving aside what has been said about how the PM isn't elected, should John Major have called an election in 1992? What about Jim Callagham in 1976? Or even, shock horror, Winston Churchill in 1940? 'Cause, you know, none of them were party leader during the general election prior to their assumption of the post of Prime Minister. Like him or not, Gordon Brown has ironically done exactly what the precedent and procedure has suggested he do...when there's no clear leader, the incumbent has the right to have a go before anyone else. But what does it matter now that he's resigned as Prime Minister...
Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
posted
It's all over for Brown. He's gone! He's visited the Palace, he's quit the party leadership.
Dave's seen the queen.
However nobody has said if we actually have a government or not yet.
But at least all the bitching about an elected PM will stop now.
EDIT: Brilliant news: Cameron has ousted Eastenders! Apparently a new PM is more important than the goings on of Wallford. Whoda thunk it?
I feel I should point out strongly that I am not cheering for Cameron, but rather happy that Gordon Brown has left (and conducted himself in a surprisingly un-Blairy way).
-------------------- I have plenty of experience in biology. I bought a Tamagotchi in 1998... And... it's still alive.
Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
quote:Not only did he have a go at Alastair Campbell, seems he also had a bit of a run-in with Ben Bradshaw as well.
Not that I wish to defend journalistic unprofessionalism, but Alastair Campbell is in all fairness a gigantic git who was being intentionally provocative and makes a habit of blaming everything from his uneven driveway to the black death on Sky and the BBC's reporting methods. So I can't say I blame Boulton from resisting the urge to nut the bastard and settling for shouting in his face on live TV. The bugger of it was that it seems to be exactly what Campbell wanted. Not that it matters now, the smug git is out along with the rest of his party and are safe to lick their wounds where they can blame every little thing that goes wrong on the coalition and bet their hopes on getting voted back in next time by a drastic increase in the alzheimer's population.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
