The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8672859.stm[/URL]
Discuss.
Personally, I thought he was all right, did well with the situations he was put in most of the time.
Discuss.
Personally, I thought he was all right, did well with the situations he was put in most of the time.
Page:
Alfonse wrote:
> Machie wrote:
> So the next prime minister could again be someone we didn't
> vote
> for?
>
> You vote for the party, not the personality.
I thought this too, even though it's not true at all. You vote for your local "personality" who is the candidate for the party in your area.
I'm sure you know this already, but it always gets overlooked. Even though I don't think it has been made obvious that way, 'cos I think about 70% of voters don't know who their candidate is at all.......
Electoral reform doesn't look like such a bad thing when you think of that. Couple that with the fact that the person, who at the moment has (arguably) the most power in the country, is someone we decided we didn't want anywhere near leadership (by a landslide too)..........
> Machie wrote:
> So the next prime minister could again be someone we didn't
> vote
> for?
>
> You vote for the party, not the personality.
I thought this too, even though it's not true at all. You vote for your local "personality" who is the candidate for the party in your area.
I'm sure you know this already, but it always gets overlooked. Even though I don't think it has been made obvious that way, 'cos I think about 70% of voters don't know who their candidate is at all.......
Electoral reform doesn't look like such a bad thing when you think of that. Couple that with the fact that the person, who at the moment has (arguably) the most power in the country, is someone we decided we didn't want anywhere near leadership (by a landslide too)..........
I can see the benefits of this hung parliament. I wouldn't say it is an ideal situation for the long term, but it must involve them having to sit down with one another to reach an agreement, which I believe will have more effect than shouting things at one another across the room.
Alfonse wrote:
> pb wrote:
> some people find it hard to see how it could benefit
> politics as it does in many other countries to have a shared
> Government. Changes to the voting system may make it even more
> likely to happen in future.
>
> The only shared government I have ever studied intensely was the
> Weimar government, and we all know how that turned out.
>
> So I'd love to drop my prejudices but it just sounds
> inefficient.
Isn't that like someone from the south saying the only person from the North they know is a thief so they all must be the same?
> pb wrote:
> some people find it hard to see how it could benefit
> politics as it does in many other countries to have a shared
> Government. Changes to the voting system may make it even more
> likely to happen in future.
>
> The only shared government I have ever studied intensely was the
> Weimar government, and we all know how that turned out.
>
> So I'd love to drop my prejudices but it just sounds
> inefficient.
Isn't that like someone from the south saying the only person from the North they know is a thief so they all must be the same?
I suppose things could be worse. We could all be BA employees. With all the striking they do, it must be hell working for that company. I feel sorry for them. :(
pb wrote:
some people find it hard to see how it could benefit
> politics as it does in many other countries to have a shared
> Government. Changes to the voting system may make it even more
> likely to happen in future.
The only shared government I have ever studied intensely was the Weimar government, and we all know how that turned out.
So I'd love to drop my prejudices but it just sounds inefficient.
some people find it hard to see how it could benefit
> politics as it does in many other countries to have a shared
> Government. Changes to the voting system may make it even more
> likely to happen in future.
The only shared government I have ever studied intensely was the Weimar government, and we all know how that turned out.
So I'd love to drop my prejudices but it just sounds inefficient.
Machie wrote:
> So the next prime minister could again be someone we didn't vote
> for?
You vote for the party, not the personality.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it possible for David
> Cameron to become Prime Minister regardless of whether his party
> holds the majority of the seats?
He can't become Prime Minister unless he can form a majority.
> Even if the Lib dems join Labour won't they be short quite a few
> seats and have to bring in four or five other parties to reach
> the majority? That doesn't sound like a good idea. :S
It sounds bad but considering it will only be a few mps (not counting the lib dems), even including Caroline "sigh" Lucas.
> So the next prime minister could again be someone we didn't vote
> for?
You vote for the party, not the personality.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it possible for David
> Cameron to become Prime Minister regardless of whether his party
> holds the majority of the seats?
He can't become Prime Minister unless he can form a majority.
> Even if the Lib dems join Labour won't they be short quite a few
> seats and have to bring in four or five other parties to reach
> the majority? That doesn't sound like a good idea. :S
It sounds bad but considering it will only be a few mps (not counting the lib dems), even including Caroline "sigh" Lucas.
It doesn't quite work like that, there are ways for Labour and Lib Dems to get in to power.
Could even be that Lib Dems have already moved to talks with Labour behind the scenes and this was a request for the result. Lib dems obviously playing an important part in any decision.
We've been a one party, one tunnel visioned view for so long that some people find it hard to see how it could benefit politics as it does in many other countries to have a shared Government. Changes to the voting system may make it even more likely to happen in future.
Could even be that Lib Dems have already moved to talks with Labour behind the scenes and this was a request for the result. Lib dems obviously playing an important part in any decision.
We've been a one party, one tunnel visioned view for so long that some people find it hard to see how it could benefit politics as it does in many other countries to have a shared Government. Changes to the voting system may make it even more likely to happen in future.
So the next prime minister could again be someone we didn't vote for?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it possible for David Cameron to become Prime Minister regardless of whether his party holds the majority of the seats?
Even if the Lib dems join Labour won't they be short quite a few seats and have to bring in four or five other parties to reach the majority? That doesn't sound like a good idea. :S
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is it possible for David Cameron to become Prime Minister regardless of whether his party holds the majority of the seats?
Even if the Lib dems join Labour won't they be short quite a few seats and have to bring in four or five other parties to reach the majority? That doesn't sound like a good idea. :S
We all knew this months ago, next it will be, "Breaking news, Miliband is new Labour Leader"
Yawn.
Yawn.
The way I see it, Labour are still in power as nobody got the required majority. Brown will stay as PM until they elect a new Labour leader (end of the year) or until a coalition is formed between two parties and a leader is selected from that. At the moment this looks like it will be 'Dave' :(
It is worth considering that Brown is leaving in order to make a Lab/Lib coalition more attractive to Clegg as the general consensus is that people voted against Labour due to dislike for Brown. As we have heard little from the Con/Lib meetings (not surprising as they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum) there is a good chance this was the reason as Labour try to grip onto power.
One or the other, we will find out who our PM is before the end of this month with the Queen's speech, I think.
It is worth considering that Brown is leaving in order to make a Lab/Lib coalition more attractive to Clegg as the general consensus is that people voted against Labour due to dislike for Brown. As we have heard little from the Con/Lib meetings (not surprising as they are at opposite ends of the political spectrum) there is a good chance this was the reason as Labour try to grip onto power.
One or the other, we will find out who our PM is before the end of this month with the Queen's speech, I think.
Page: