Question Time Page 22

  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

  • spamdangled 5 Jul 2012 23:23:12 27,426 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    It's a wee bit annoying how he keeps interrupting and talking over people though, but yeah largely he's made some decent points and tonight is a good example of the public scepticism into a parliamentary inquiry into banking. There's been so many scandals over the last few years that it really does warrant a full judge-led inquiry and I'm pretty embarassed to be a Liberal Democrat at the moment if they are supporting this toothless sham of a parliament-led inquiry.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Bremenacht 5 Jul 2012 23:30:58 19,372 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Labour are only asking for it to get one over the Tories. They don't really want one.
  • WoodenSpoon 5 Jul 2012 23:31:51 12,294 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Why don't you just sack the Lib Dems off and vote Labour?

    I used to defend the Lib Dems' choice to go in to coalition, now I just can't be arsed. What have they actually achieved in government? The Tories are enacting the most aggressive programme of cuts since Thatcher, have the Lib Dems softened that blow to any meaningful extent? I guess they got that referendum on that electoral system they didn't want, which they lost... Now they're talking about Lords reform, which no one gives a shit about. What's the point?
  • woodnotes 5 Jul 2012 23:33:42 4,937 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I get the point Rotten was trying to make about drugs, but ultimately alcohol is legal and that hasn't stopped people like myself from getting shit-faced regularly!
  • spamdangled 5 Jul 2012 23:38:28 27,426 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    Why don't you just sack the Lib Dems off and vote Labour?

    I used to defend the Lib Dems' choice to go in to coalition, now I just can't be arsed. What have they actually achieved in government?
    The increase in the personal tax allowance to 10k, introduction of the pupil premium, scrapping ID cards, a universal benefit system, rebalancing constituency borders, lords reform, gay marriage...

    Edited by darkmorgado at 23:39:36 05-07-2012

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Deleted user 5 July 2012 23:40:24
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    Why don't you just sack the Lib Dems off and vote Labour?

    I used to defend the Lib Dems' choice to go in to coalition, now I just can't be arsed. What have they actually achieved in government? The Tories are enacting the most aggressive programme of cuts since Thatcher, have the Lib Dems softened that blow to any meaningful extent? I guess they got that referendum on that electoral system they didn't want, which they lost... Now they're talking about Lords reform, which no one gives a shit about. What's the point?
    one of the things i say they have done, i'm on a really low wage, and since they raised the tax threshold, i get between 20-30 pound extra a month ish in wages, which believe it or not makes a lot of difference for me. it pays for a week shop, or a months electric/gas.

    Edited by joelstinton at 23:41:20 05-07-2012
  • Bremenacht 5 Jul 2012 23:40:44 19,372 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I think every one of those things would have been done by progressive Tories anyway.
  • Bremenacht 5 Jul 2012 23:42:13 19,372 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Best thing anyone can do is not vote for the main three parties. Don't vote at all if you prefer - spoil your vote, and then blog or tweet or whatever to say why.
  • spamdangled 5 Jul 2012 23:55:17 27,426 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Best thing anyone can do is not vote for the main three parties. Don't vote at all if you prefer - spoil your vote, and then blog or tweet or whatever to say why.
    Yeah because not voting or deliberately spoiling your ballot will make a huge difference.

    Oh wait, no it won't.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Bremenacht 5 Jul 2012 23:58:34 19,372 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yeah because voting Labour or Tory or LibDem will make a huge difference.

    Oh wait, no it won't.
  • MetalDog 6 Jul 2012 00:04:24 23,873 posts
    Seen 17 seconds ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    You're crediting the Lib Dems with scrapping ID cards? Really? When there was a majorly important vote on the subject under Labour, not enough of them could be fucked to turn up and vote against it. As a lib dem voter at the time, that pissed me off immensely.

    As for Lords reform - the one really good thing about the Lords is that they can veto the madder knee-jerk political shit coming out of the other house. Now they're trying to take that ability away. Great. That will work out SO well for us, won't it?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • localnotail 6 Jul 2012 00:07:31 23,093 posts
    Seen 9 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    If Mensch's argument for not legalising drugs because "they mess her head up" is to hold true, I demand the criminalisation of booze, red bull, Hollyoaks and calculus.

    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

  • Bremenacht 6 Jul 2012 00:11:56 19,372 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    My argument for this is that if all the spoiled votes were tallied in order to represent opposition towards the way our primary political parties carried out their business, those parties and those who report on them would take a lot of notice.

    You wouldn't have to worry about voting in a bunch of nutters, because you'd have voted for no-one. Someone (MD?) in another thread said that not all authorities keep count of spoiled votes, so people who spoiled their votes would have to register elsewhere to say they'd done so.

    Ok - huge difference? No. But, has voting Tory or Labour (or LibDem..) made any difference to government behaviour on matters such as the privatisation of almost every critical public service there is? No; they act just the same. Regulation and law? Pretty much the same. There is very little difference between the main three on policy - the only notable difference is what they choose to prioritise, and how they choose to publicise (or not publicise) what they do.

    (Umm. Wrong thread really - sorry)

    @dm

    Edited by Bremenacht at 00:12:31 06-07-2012
  • Bremenacht 6 Jul 2012 00:14:29 19,372 posts
    Seen 38 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    localnotail wrote:
    If Mensch's argument for not legalising drugs because "they mess her head up" is to hold true, I demand the criminalisation of booze, red bull, Hollyoaks and calculus.
    And music! And the Internet! And the Earth! And Life!
  • Deleted user 6 July 2012 00:20:46
    add to that hello magazine and tabloid papers.

    Its a difficult argument, if you did decriminalise it, at least the government gets to control the drug and grow/make it to there own standards, i mainly talking about weed here, but half of the problem here is how its grown and the shit people add to it. Thats what messes with people heads. Going to amsterdam made me sort of stop smoking weed, it was so much clearer, and did much nicer stuff to me than the shit you get here. Couldn't really stand and take smoking my local dealer stuff again when i came back.

    Her argument is a naive one, but a convincing one in the general public face of things. Lots of people heads do get fucked up. Whereas she probably add a bad night at uni and decided she didn't like acid and would promise daddy she never do it again.

    And to be honest if you did decriminalise it, britain for the first month be at a standstill we would take drinking culture and really give it large on all weekend benders because we can.

    Edited by joelstinton at 00:22:15 06-07-2012
  • MightyMouse 6 Jul 2012 00:25:31 1,136 posts
    Seen 51 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    But Portugal's change in policy to view it as a health problem rather than a criminal one resulted in less drug use. The evidence that we have is that decriminalisation works.
  • boo 6 Jul 2012 00:31:53 11,897 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It was a while back, but well publicised.

    On a separate note, I'm always reminded of Pamela Stephenson on Not The Nine O'Clock News when some earnest woman starts off a drug-related comment with 'I know these kids...'

    Just Another Lego Blog

  • WoodenSpoon 6 Jul 2012 00:49:12 12,294 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    Why don't you just sack the Lib Dems off and vote Labour?

    I used to defend the Lib Dems' choice to go in to coalition, now I just can't be arsed. What have they actually achieved in government?
    The increase in the personal tax allowance to 10k, introduction of the pupil premium, scrapping ID cards, a universal benefit system, rebalancing constituency borders, lords reform, gay marriage...
    Pupil Premiums and the 10k tax allowance are fine, in a deckchairs-off-the-Titanic sort of way. Gay marriage is admirable, but I can't help but view it as a pretty meagre sop given that civil partnerships confer all the legal boons of marriage already. ID cards, 'rebalancing' constituency borders and Lords reform are pretty lol-worthy (if they even get Lords reform)...

    I don't know what you mean by a universal benefit system?

    Is any of that worth being sat next to George Osborne every Wednesday?
  • spamdangled 6 Jul 2012 00:54:04 27,426 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    WoodenSpoon wrote:
    [Gay marriage is admirable, but I can't help but view it as a pretty meagre sop given that civil partnerships confer all the legal boons of marriage already.
    It doesn't, actually. Disoslving a civil partnership is significantly harder than disolving a marriage, for instance. And the very fact that that CPs and Marriage have different terms is is a slap in the face to equality ( on both sides).

    Edited by darkmorgado at 00:55:10 06-07-2012

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • WoodenSpoon 6 Jul 2012 01:15:44 12,294 posts
    Seen 15 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Fair enough, I suppose to a fair few people it is an important matter of principle.

    The way I see it marriage as an institution is a bit of a farce - if your other half is worth staying with then you'll stay together, and if it isn't then you'll split - regardless of the legal ramifications.

    Since I don't value marriage as an institution I think that anyone who does must be wrong and therefore don't see it as much of a victory that gay people can now be technically correct when they use the term to describe their relationship with their significant other.

    I guess maybe I'm just a self important wanker, but hey.
  • spamdangled 6 Jul 2012 01:26:49 27,426 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    On the equality side, the argument is that if straight marriage and gay civil partnerships have different names, then there is an inherent distinction between the two in the eyes of the law. Also, civil partnerships cannot be dissolved on grounds of "irreconcilable differences", and they can't be dissolved unless the partnership has existed for over a year - a pretty huge distinction from marriage. There's also a discrimination argument as straight people can't have civil partnerships (you'd be surprised how many people have raised this, such as disabled people and their carers who wish to cement their connection in law) and gay people can't be married - both options should be open to both orientations.

    I totally get where you're coming from with regards to your viewpoint on the integrity of marriage as an institution, but there's a massive symbolic value irrespective of your views and quite a few religions (and representatives of religions which officially oppose it) have said they would like to perform the ceremonies. People should be given the option.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • spamdangled 6 Jul 2012 01:35:11 27,426 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The HOL has no democratic mandate whatsoever. It's a mate's list chosen by government each year with no cross-party agreement. Replacing the current system with PR will actually make it even more democratic than the HOC.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Khanivor 6 Jul 2012 01:55:39 41,109 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    The HoL has served the country fairly well though. In my mind, it's made a fairly strong case for having democracy balanced by people who are not constantly vying for re-election. If it wasn't for the HoL Labour would have put a camera up everyone's bum.

    Aha!

    ;)
  • spamdangled 6 Jul 2012 08:02:37 27,426 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Madgod_Dc wrote:
    @darkmorgado The House of Lords should be presided over by the Queen. it is her side of the government, and the house of parliament is meant to be the public side of government. if this is no longer the case, then government should be dissolved asap, because the current set up was an agreement between the queen and the people. now business is embedded in the government, its time to start again.
    so? The queen has no democratic mandate either and is even more out of touch with ordinary people than politicians. She can fuck right off.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • Page

    of 30 First / Last

Log in or register to reply