Quantcast
The British general election. (HUNG PARLIAMENT)

Forums - Politics Discussion - The British general election. (HUNG PARLIAMENT)

Tagged games:

Hung Parliament?

Hang Parliament! 4 33.33%
 
Handwaving Participant 1 8.33%
 
Heated Posterior 0 0.00%
 
Home Parlour 1 8.33%
 
Hetero Positioning 1 8.33%
 
Herbivore Pterodactyl 2 16.67%
 
Health Points 3 25.00%
 
Total:12
fory77 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

May is shit because she wants to censor the internet, probably even going as far as China style! She wants to screw up all relations with the EU. And she probably wants to fuck over the NHS (don't know if she does, but it's something that's usually true for tories). A future dystopian police state... no thanks?

Corbyn is shit because he's a total pussy. His solution to suicide bombers and stuff like that will probably be to "hug the terrorism out of them" and other hippy shit like that. I dunno about you but I think hugging a suicide bomber isn't going to go well. So that's a future islam dominated wasteland... also no thanks. Would take May over that, obviously, but that doesn't make her a good choice, just not the worst possible choice.

And there might as well not be other parties, they aren't going to have any real impact whatsoever. No chance of winning and even if they are required for a coalition government or something they'll just abandon all their own ideas and do whatever their torie/labour masters tell them to.

I can more or less agree about May. Same with Corbyn though imo he is simply very very anti-war. And about the others, they can make a big impact (see UKIP). Something other than the FPTP voting system is really needed to help the small parties. Scrapping parties and voting for issues would be best. 

Also judging by what you said you don't give a fuck about the economy. Am i right? 

I'm not sure UKIP actually had any impact though. They got what... 1 seat in their entire existence?

I think the EU referendum was more as a way of the Conservatives making them look a more attractive prospect than Labour by giving people a vote on it, than necessarily to do with UKIP.

Voting directly for issues simply wouldn't be feasible. There's just too many issues and let's be honest most people only really care about the major ones, so all the smaller issues would have ridiculously low turnout and just be a waste of time really. Definitely agree that FPTP is a bad system though. Not only is it bad for smaller parties, but it literally means some people's votes are more important than others, and the parties know this and use it to target those voters more than others. Yay for discrimination!

And no, don't really care about the economy. Bankers and stockbrokers can bitch about it all they want, doesn't mean fuck all to me though. From what I saw UK during recession was no different at all to UK before recession.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

Around the Network

From my limited perspective as an American (meaning I am ignorant about your foreign politics by default), Conservative seems to be the most tolerable choice. Admittedly, that's less because of them and more because the other parties seem ineffective and/or insane.



Love and tolerate.

super_etecoon said:
Can someone who is familiar with both the American political party system and the British political party system draw parallels between each...if they exist? Don't really know much about the British system.

The Labour party has a "third-way" liberal wing (most similar to Clinton), and a democratic socialist wing, each of which can be subdivided further, and then also miscellaneous left-wingers (Rawlsians liberals, luck egalitarians, feminists, etc.) When I say Democratic Socialist I mean real Democratic Socialism, where they aim to put key industries in to the hands of the state by nationalizing them.  

The Conservative party has civic nationalists, right liberals, and centrists. 

The Lib-Dem party has classical liberals ( think John Stuart Mill) and social democrats (think modern Bernie Sanders.) 

Socially the Conservative party is much less religious and culturally conservative than Republicans. It aims more toward conserving the traditional British institutions (monarchy, aristocracy, church, capitalism, etc.) 

Culturally the Labour party has much less of a liberal consensus than the Democratic party. It is much more accepting of anti-semitism, and much less strict about gay marriage, internationalism, etc. This is because of its working class demographic. 

The lib-dem party is the most similar to the Democratic party as far as cultural issues go. 

Roughly, think of the Conservatives as moderate Republicans, the Labour as a coalition of third-way Democrats and socialists (the latter of which we don't have an American analogue), and the Liberal Democrats as a mix of moderate Libertarians and left-wing (Bernie Sanders) Democrats. 

There is also UKIP which is very much like the Trumpian/paleo-conservative wing of the Republican party, and other more fringe right-wing and left-wing parties.

Corbyn is a Democratic Socialist to the left of modern Bernie Sanders, and May is a civic nationalist economically to the left of Republicans, but just as nationalist as Republicans. 



Ka-pi96 said:
super_etecoon said:
Can someone who is familiar with both the American political party system and the British political party system draw parallels between each...if they exist? Don't really know much about the British system.

Not that familiar with the American one, but from what I do know... Conservatives = Hilary Clinton Democrats. Labour = Bernie Sanders Democrats.

Thanks!

Go Labour!



May is an arsehole but we are going to be stuck with her as voters are stupid...



Around the Network
Squall_Leonhart said:
May is an arsehole but we are going to be stuck with her as voters are stupid...

Pretty much.

At least she didn't fuck a pig though...



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

sc94597 said:
super_etecoon said:
Can someone who is familiar with both the American political party system and the British political party system draw parallels between each...if they exist? Don't really know much about the British system.

The Labour party has a "third-way" liberal wing (most similar to Clinton), and a democratic socialist wing, each of which can be subdivided further, and then also miscellaneous left-wingers (Rawlsians liberals, luck egalitarians, feminists, etc.) When I say Democratic Socialist I mean real Democratic Socialism, where they aim to put key industries in to the hands of the state by nationalizing them.  

The Conservative party has civic nationalists, right liberals, and centrists. 

The Lib-Dem party has classical liberals ( think John Stuart Mill) and social democrats (think modern Bernie Sanders.) 

Socially the Conservative party is much less religious and culturally conservative than Republicans. It aims more toward conserving the traditional British institutions (monarchy, aristocracy, church, capitalism, etc.) 

Culturally the Labour party has much less of a liberal consensus than the Democratic party. It is much more accepting of anti-semitism, and much less strict about gay marriage, internationalism, etc. This is because of its working class demographic. 

The lib-dem party is the most similar to the Democratic party as far as cultural issues go. 

Roughly, think of the Conservatives as moderate Republicans, the Labour as a coalition of third-way Democrats and socialists (the latter of which we don't have an American analogue), and the Liberal Democrats as a mix of moderate Libertarians and left-wing (Bernie Sanders) Democrats. 

There is also UKIP which is very much like the Trumpian/paleo-conservative wing of the Republican party, and other more fringe right-wing and left-wing parties.

Corbyn is a Democratic Socialist to the left of modern Bernie Sanders, and May is a civic nationalist economically to the left of Republicans, but just as nationalist as Republicans. 

thanks for writing this up...helps a lot.  



Ka-pi96 said:

I'm not sure UKIP actually had any impact though. They got what... 1 seat in their entire existence?

I think the EU referendum was more as a way of the Conservatives making them look a more attractive prospect than Labour by giving people a vote on it, than necessarily to do with UKIP.

Voting directly for issues simply wouldn't be feasible. There's just too many issues and let's be honest most people only really care about the major ones, so all the smaller issues would have ridiculously low turnout and just be a waste of time really. Definitely agree that FPTP is a bad system though. Not only is it bad for smaller parties, but it literally means some people's votes are more important than others, and the parties know this and use it to target those voters more than others. Yay for discrimination!

And no, don't really care about the economy. Bankers and stockbrokers can bitch about it all they want, doesn't mean fuck all to me though. From what I saw UK during recession was no different at all to UK before recession.

They got 12% of the vote in 2015 (when they got that seat) making them the 3rd most popular party. They were gobbling up Conservative votes. The Tories had to promise a referendum if they wanted to win.

I guess so. 1 billion referendums would be annoying, though the alternative would be what we have today. And it could be easily reversed if people get tired.



fory77 said:
Ka-pi96 said:

I'm not sure UKIP actually had any impact though. They got what... 1 seat in their entire existence?

I think the EU referendum was more as a way of the Conservatives making them look a more attractive prospect than Labour by giving people a vote on it, than necessarily to do with UKIP.

Voting directly for issues simply wouldn't be feasible. There's just too many issues and let's be honest most people only really care about the major ones, so all the smaller issues would have ridiculously low turnout and just be a waste of time really. Definitely agree that FPTP is a bad system though. Not only is it bad for smaller parties, but it literally means some people's votes are more important than others, and the parties know this and use it to target those voters more than others. Yay for discrimination!

And no, don't really care about the economy. Bankers and stockbrokers can bitch about it all they want, doesn't mean fuck all to me though. From what I saw UK during recession was no different at all to UK before recession.

They got 12% of the vote in 2015 (when they got that seat) making them the 3rd most popular party. They were gobbling up Conservative votes. The Tories had to promise a referendum if they wanted to win.

I guess so. 1 billion referendums would be annoying, though the alternative would be what we have today. And it could be easily reversed if people get tired.

They got more votes than the Lib Dems? :O Wow, Clegg really did ruin that party!



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702

I haven't been keeping up with it all and I'm not familiar with the candidates. I'll try to at least to look into the candidate's before I post again.