Dubstepforum.com

magma wrote: It's almost like the Yellows want Britain to be some sort of liberal democracy.

I know... it's fucking crazy... there's a possibility that people who give a shit, and don't
just want to line their pockets will gain power... That's never happened in my lifetime. (25 years...)

Watched it while working, out of the corner of my eye. Just made me a bit nauseous the whole thing.

David Cameron reminds me of the V leader from V giving speeches to the population before enslaving and consuming them, so fucking slick and reptilian.

I have no idea who to vote for, only who NOT to vote for.

One thing all three can agree on:

"Yes, deep cuts are necessary BUT..."

the acid never lies wrote:One thing all three can agree on:

"Yes, deep cuts are necessary BUT..."

Yeah but, the BUT is the important part... I'm loving the idea of cutting the managers (bureaucracy) out of the NHS...
All of my friends that work in the NHS (and I have quite a few, as quite a few are involved in mental healthcare)
say the major problem is the fact that you're constantly getting fucked over by your managers that need you
obtain targets in order to make them look good and the treatment is not patient driven - therefore you get stuck
in feedback loops.

jazzamataz wrote:

the acid never lies wrote:One thing all three can agree on:

"Yes, deep cuts are necessary BUT..."

Yeah but, the BUT is the important part... I'm loving the idea of cutting the managers (bureaucracy) out of the NHS...
All of my friends that work in the NHS (and I have quite a few, as quite a few are involved in mental healthcare)
say the major problem is the fact that you're constantly getting fucked over by your managers that need you
obtain targets in order to make them look good and the treatment is not patient driven - therefore you get stuck
in feedback loops.

Absolutely, cutting the managers is only part of the problem I'd say. The whole market model that introduces 'competition' to the realm of health (good old neo-liberalism at work) should be dismantled. This target driven shit is messing with all layers of the public sector.

Also, an end to costly Public Private Partnerships. The fact that public money going into say, the NHS is being used to line the pockets of investors is frankly, disgusting...

I'm kind of proud that lib dems are being taken semi-seriously for once. Gwan Cleggy, it's like a dwarf actor trying to be taken as a respected member of the thesp community.

http://www.loonyparty.com/index.php?pag ... roposals-1

Hypocrites
It is proposed that all politicians be made to swear a "hippocratic oath", preventing them by law from being Hypocrites. All politicians should be made to stand by their policies, or or at least admit that they were wrong.

Political correctness
The Isle of Wight should be changed to: "The Isle of Mixed Races, and Cultures Located off the Coast of Britain."

Iraq.
Polcy on Iraq: Since Iraq needs to have a proper infrastructure before they can run their own country, I propose we send our traffic wardens out to Iraq to give tickets to American Jeeps and Tanks illegally parked thereby raising much needed revenue for the Iraq government (and giving us a much needed break!)

the thing that i find amazing is that your three candidates in the UK have roughly a month to put their cases to the nation. its completely different from the year or so that is the normal timeframe in US elections. one years worth of nauseating spin doctoring, damage control, attacks, etc. america has a lot to learn from britain in regard to this. making it short and sweet, really makes democracy take the front seat, rather than in america where the advantage goes to which politician has more money to drive their campaigning.

i predit clegg will take it, easily. its the obama effect...speak about change, but also run the middle ground to the end.

Since when were the Lib Dems 'middle of the ground'?

They're the only party of the three who are anything but.

seckle wrote:the thing that i find amazing is that your three candidates in the UK have roughly a month to put their cases to the nation. its completely different from the year or so that is the normal timeframe in US elections. one years worth of nauseating spin doctoring, damage control, attacks, etc. america has a lot to learn from britain in regard to this. making it short and sweet, really makes democracy take the front seat, rather than in america where the advantage goes to which politician has more money to drive their campaigning.

yeah but to be fair, america is a lot bigger than uk so a lot more campaigning is needed to reach everyone

wubstep wrote:Since when were the Lib Dems 'middle of the ground'?

They're the only party of the three who are anything but.

Middle ground between Labour and Tory perhaps;

Here in Camden they are all for privatisation. They only seem to the left of Labour when it comes to immigration (immigrant amnesty). It's their social policies that are generally more progressive on the 'civil liberties' front, Trident, but unlike Labour they have no ties to the working class or the trade unions and they promise 'savage cuts'.

Anything but 'middle of the ground'? I can't imagine what you mean - they don't represent a radical departure from laissez faire politics to me.

It's all a joke, I'm not voting until the day comes of two additional options:

a) VOTE NONE
b) Vote strongest members from each party to produce one merged party that acts as an unrigid fluid capable of adapting in responses to a constant democracy

I don't know too much about politics, but at school I never gave a shit about popularity or control

In the pub the other night I jokingly said I was going to vote BNP, the barmaid answered me saying that is who she was going to vote for too. She went onto say she's always voted tory but it is time to 'step things up'.

Pretty sure she's mixed race of some sort or another too, madness.

firky wrote:In the pub the other night I jokingly said I was going to vote BNP, the barmaid answered me saying that is who she was going to vote for too. She went onto say she's always voted tory but it is time to 'step things up'.

Pretty sure she's mixed race of some sort or another too, madness.

Perhaps she one upped your joke! Serves you right really.

BLAHBLAHJAH wrote: b) Vote strongest members from each party to produce one merged party that acts as an unrigid fluid capable of adapting in responses to a constant democracy

Not sure if I follow your logic here, pretty sure this isn't any kind of win for democracy!

how anyone can support any of the three parties when they all are going to continue two illegal wars is completely beyond me

seckle wrote:the thing that i find amazing is that your three candidates in the UK have roughly a month to put their cases to the nation. its completely different from the year or so that is the normal timeframe in US elections. one years worth of nauseating spin doctoring, damage control, attacks, etc. america has a lot to learn from britain in regard to this. making it short and sweet, really makes democracy take the front seat, rather than in america where the advantage goes to which politician has more money to drive their campaigning.

It's practically identical in the UK mate. Whoever Murdoch shouts he likes the best wins. The parties are constantly judged and go in and out of favour, it's not just the month or so of the election campaign that they are spouting off unfortunately!