Oh get off it, if that's true then why are unwilling to sign any meaningful agreement? They use more energy than the rest of the world and American uses more energy per person than any other country in the world. There are even people in America who see it as their duty to worsen the environment so that they can be ruptured by fecking Jesus. China has one and a half billion people, England about 60 million, comparing the total renewable energy used is pointless.
Alternative vote,sell it to me,or otherwise...
- Thread starter Sassy Colin
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Population is absolutely irrelevant, economic development is - the United States is by far the wealthiest country in the world hence they use more energy than anyone - Americans have 310 Million people, of course they are going to have some nutters. They are building far more hydroelectric plants than we are, solar panels than we are, wind turbines than we are, and they have a far larger base of renewable energy use than we do.
The PRC is an industrialising country as is India, it goes without saying their energy use is going sky high as it is across the developing world. It is very rich for environmentalists in the first world to start criticising the burning of fossil fuels to become wealthy when that is exactly what we did, and that we have less renewable energy use than the United States, China, France and Germany.
Certainly, if the Conservatives had formed a weak, minority government I seriously doubt that the markets would have been as assured of our creditworthiness.
A minority Conservative govt would not have been able to pass the necessary deficit reduction measures and we may have lost our AAA rating.
I think our democracy makes a farce of the concept Mike, and I've long made that absolutely clear, so you can shove your hollow jibes
The Lib Dems pushed to try and change the system, however minor, and it was a progressive step in the right direction. The people who for so long have become apathetic about politics, cynical of politicians, complaining they don't serve the will of the people... have opted to maintain the status quo. Fair enough
The Lib Dems did exactly what the current system allows them, nigh expects them to do in the situation we were faced with. Cameron courted the Lib Dems too remember. It gave the country strong Government, with most of the people's interests at least partial served - each got some of their policies realised in Government. Our press and public reaction to the idea that two parties with different outlooks could actually work together has been pathetic and childish. We moan about tribal politics, then can't see past that prism view ourselves. No, we have to have a system that artificially inflates the power of the top party of the day to get anything done
I'd completely overhaul the way we 'do' democracy in this country Mike, but that isn't on the table, and won't be for a very long time now
Population is entirely relevant, the States don't want to sign the agreements because they limit the use of energy per person, rather than per country. Which is a wicked thing to do. And you can't compare the raw amount of energy used of a country with a billion and a half people to one with 60 millon.
I don't criticise the burning of fossil fuels, for the exact reason you said. I just find it pointless for us to spend billions when it won't change a fecking thing. In cases of geothermal energy I would condone it because that, I believe, will be the "fuel" of choice in the future as the planet has an unlimited supply (in relation to how much we use anyway).
Absolute rubbish.
The British people do not need a leaflet to understand how something does or doesn't work.
The distrust of Nick Clegg perhaps played a part.
He tried to rig the timing of the referendum to coincide with the Welsh and Scottish votes hoping that the traditional UK Tory support wouldn't turn up.
How wrong he got it.
If Clegg had principles he would have never entertained the thought of going into coalition with the Tories. No man with liberal principles would.
He was desperate for a bit of power.
The great British public are not stupid or naive. They have taken Clegg for what he is - a worm.
There's flashes of Lib Dem policy I'll give you that.
But no where near enough to justify the selling of one's principles.
They'll vote for them next time.
England is blue.
Even the Scots have deserted Labour.
Labour where expecting another 1,500 councillors.
They got 800.
They speaks volumes for Ed and Ed.
Exactly.
The Lib dems based on their share of the vote have no business in government.
I don't really agree with this. If you are a liberal then you are probably in favour of economic liberalism (ie broadly against government intervention). That is something Liberals and Conservatives have in common. I see that there are massive divides on social policy but this election (like most) was about the economy.
That was what the tories said they should be getting, bit of a difference. The Scots didn't actually desert Labour either, the Lib Dems just voted for the SNP, Labour's vote held at pretty much the same level. Doubt the same would happen in a general election.
Bit soon to say anything speaks volumes of anyone really.
It will be the betrayal of their social principles that will hold forever in the memory of Lib Dem voters.
Those students that waited at the polling stations for hours to offer Clegg their support only for him to pull the rug from under them.
They may have shared economic principles, apart from their views on the banking system, but the price they have had to pay is too high.
They lost 17% of their seats in Scotland.
They should have gained from the Lib Dems not had their voters desert them.
Do you think Milliband did not expect to make big gains given the programme of cuts the coalition is implementing?
Their share of the vote was down 0.5 percent. Failure to win voters is hardly the same thing as being "deserted". The scottish liked the SNP as a national government, fair enough, but they'll be voting Labour at the next election - it's that or the tories.
Labour "officially" expected gains of around 400-600, obviously that's an undersell but 1,500 is the tories spinning it their own way.
The figure of 1500 did not come from the Torys.
Why would they estimate how many seats labour would gain.
The 17% figure I quoted is the number of seats labour lost in the Scottish Parliament.
Well, watching the results program, every single member of the tory party that came on said more or less that number as the target for Labour. They estimate so that they can set a high target which they know Labour will never get, so as to spin whatever result they do get as a poor one. They were using Hague's result of around 1400 gains in '99 as a barometer, I believe.
I know they lost seats in Scotland, my point was that their vote didn't really fall much at all, so your "being deserted in Scotland" point wasn't entirely accurate.
Scotland deserted the lib dems really, and all their votes went to the SNP rather than Labour and in a general election it will go to Labour rather than the Tories.
Yup, exactly.
Last General election Labour as usual in Scotland won the majority of the seats up here however the devolved Parliment is always a different result since it has been in operation. SNP won the devolved vote the last time around as well and were in a coalition of sorts with the Lib-Dems, all we have seen here is unhappiness at the Lib-Dems so there vote has gone to the SNP.
Add in a poor election campaign from the Labour party with the usual Tory lead media like the Sun backing the SNP pulling off stunts to make Labour look bad throughout the campaigning. Wasn't any great surprise the way the result went for the local issues, when it comes to the UK level politics most in Scotland know it is pointless voting SNP as they have no great say in Westminster.
The problem is that people think "Different parties are different huuuuurrr durrrrrrr" people can't get their heads around coalition governments.
Completely true, I prefer coalitions because it prevents the really shit policies from making their way into legislation.
I don't think there will be a referendum, I have a feeling that the SNP will bottle it. Possibly due to 'economic' issues.
It will be ironic if they did hold the referendum and the Scots voted to leave. Labour, after years of shirking the issue of electoral reform will be MASSIVELY pushing for it due to the conservative dominance of English seats.
Yup, it's unlikely but if it did happen, would be dire for Labour. Either Tory dominance results or Labour have to move (further) to the right, which would suck as well.
Would the Labour voters here be amenable to a Labour/Liberal coalition after the next election, or are they unforgivable for the moment? Not saying it's likely, just wondering about the mood. I'd snap your hand off for that, to be honest.
No it doesn't - it promotes consensus I'm-all-right-Jack policies - we'd never have had the NHS or universal education with coalition-style politics.
Is that what's happening now then?
I think the students on the board will disagree whole heartedly with you.
Oh come on, that was going to happen no matter who was in power anyway. The Lib Dems themselves admitted that it was an empty promise because they didn't expect to be in power.
Which when the Tories get in power they try to dismantle or undermine....
So with eight days of voting left, it seems that AV will have to be implimented on caf polls. A necessary change in my opinion, the current system caters to E)boué far too much.
Would there be a vbulletin add on/hack for that? Surely some forums must be sad enough to use it in a serious way.
I nearly asked for Eboue to be included as an option but I didn't want to side track the thread.
That's a serious issue tbf...
What will be the voting format for the 2011 Caf awards this year?
If there was, we'd be able to put together a ranked MotM form instead of overestimating people's abilities to follow simple instructions.
Though as the guy who counted votes, I can see why it would be an issue. Nobody got a majority in the 2010 votes except for Brad for Drama Queen.
The poll results are in which do not reflect the actual poll result.
Says something about the demographic of the Caf/United fans I guess...
Says something about the demographic of the Caf/United fans I guess...
It's a self-selecting poll on a Manchester United Internet forum. Of course it's going to skew far different from the electorate as a whole in terms of age, political lean, etc.