World Politics

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Jacquie, Jan 28, 2010.

  1. Ajbuckly

    Ajbuckly Lab Technician

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    636
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well. Now it seems as if media is allready comfirming Spain as next. Go figure how people with top-dollars degrees cann´t help polliticians in their work to run a nation or when they themself run for office cann´t run a nations household .....but their own.

    Expenses (be that buying a sofa or looking at the import/export balance is NOT the same, but the bacis´should be). If people want Sony TVs and Honda cars ...your import is gonna be high. If you don´t produce goods of interest for other then your export is gonna be low.....What is not to understand ????

    Year after year we heard of deficit on public expense and trade - balance. Hello.....we are seeing at decrease in birth rate ergo less young to pay for the old. So public expense will raise and there will be fewer to pay...

    But in Finland the plans are to....????
     
  2. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Breaking news is that Gordon Brown the Prime Minister is to resign as the Labour Party leader. Not surprised but the timing was off. Seems like alot of people are likely interested in this position: David Milliband, Ed Milliband and Ed Balls to name but a few. If the country was left hanging before it certainly is now...
     
  3. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    well i don't think he's resigning per se just yet, i think he's just saying that once things are sorted he'll step down and allow for a new labour leader to take his place. which kind of makes sense. he did seem to be saying he'd go soon rather than now. my linguistics lecturer broke the news to me (well, the whole class) and he said it looked like milliband (presumably david, but i'm not sure) was pretty much already in position. but i assume there'd have to be a vote within the party, as usual. the fact that gordon wasn't even elected within the party was a major problem, so i think they have to do that; although it would make sense to leave any leadership elections until after the general election stuff has died down.
     
  4. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^I knew that after I posted, the way the it's was broadcast on the news made it seem like he was leaving now! :lol:

    Well, now I'm confused, can't the lib dems put us all out of our misery, and decide who they want to make some sort of arrangement with. I really don't care who it is now (this coming from a hardcore Labour support), just get on with it, before the economy suffers more. I understand that this is a difficult decision, because it could potentially tear the party in two but it needs to be done sooner rather than later in the interest of the nation.
     
  5. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^ yeah, it does, they do need to get sorted. i'm also an old school lab supporter (although as i said now i can't vote for them these days i do still stand by traditional labour principles and would rather vote them than tory!) and lab fit more neatly with lib dem outlook, so i'd rather it was that, but they really do need to work it out.
     
  6. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^It looks like talks between Labour and lib dems have broken down. It seems (the news channels are suggesting this: sky, bbc) that there is going to be some sort of deal/coalition between the lib dems and conservatives...dare I say it but I get the feeling that we could have a new prime minister and government tommorow....atleast that's my gut feeling from what I'm hearing right now on the news channels.
     
  7. newmoon804

    newmoon804 Civilian

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    When will US end the war at Iraq?
     
  8. Vickyyy

    Vickyyy Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looks like Gordon's on his way out...
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  9. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    that's certainly what it sounds like.
     
  10. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    This has now been confirmed. What a twisty and turny few days we've had since the election I guess we can breathe a sigh of relief, for now atleast. I have to say this is a real gamble for the Lib Dems to associate themselves with the tories especially if the tories cock up in the future, it would be good for them in coming elections, make no mistake about that.
     
    Last edited: May 11, 2010
  11. Desertwind

    Desertwind Head of the Day Shift

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    19,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    WOW> this is even hugh news here, and much to my surprise this was in our headlines this morning:wtf:

    BRITAIN'S PRIME MINISTER RESIGNS

    London, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown made a dramatic bid to keep his beleagured Labour Party in power after it was punished in elections last week, announcing he will resign by September at the latest even if the Liberal Democrats-being wooed by the Conservatives-decide to join his party in government. The political theater comes as David Cameron's Conservatives, which won the most seats in Parliament, but fell short of a majority, struggled in their attempts to win over the 2rd place Liberal Democrats. Brown's party has been willing to entertain supporting the Liberal Democrats demand for an overhaul of the voting system toward proportional representation which would greatly increase that party's future seat tallies. But the evening brought a furthur twist with a counteroffer from the Conservatives-a refrendum on a less dramatic type of electoral reform. One thing appears certain:the career of Brown-the Treasury chief who waited a decade in the wings for his chance to become primeminister-is winding to an end. Brown accepted blame for Labours loss of 91 seats n last week's election and it's failure to win a parliamentary majority. No othe party won outright either, resulting in the "first hung Parliament", since 1974 and triggering a frantic scramble between Brown's Labour and the main opposition Conservatives to broker a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. "A leader of my party, I must accept that this is a judgement on me", Brown said, offering to step down before the party conference in September. Brown said Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg had asked to begin formal coalition talks with the Labour Party and said he believed their parties might form a center-left alliance. Clegg had previously suggested Brown's departure would likely be a condition of any deal with labour. Brown's statement appeared to give Clegg's party a viable alternative to working with the Conservative Party, and pass electoral reform that could transform their fortunes~

    THE ASSOCIATED PRESS~

    So, do the majority of Brits agree with this development?, and poor Brown he never really had the clout or popular that Blair did, is that true?
     
  12. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, David Cameron is now our Prime Minister and Gordon Brown is not. But your right Brown was not popular and people wanted him out sooner rather than later. As for the majority of Brits, well the do agree with it cause the majority (not an overall majority but a majority nonetheless with the help of the lib dems) wanted a Conservative government led by David Cameron. I am not happy with this but yes I'll have to accept it and get use to it because it will ensure a stable government that can command the confidence of parliament and the people of this country. I do feel sorry for Brown, more because of the way he way he was portrayed in the media. But I think he left in a dignified way which is what he needed after everything that's happened.
     
  13. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah, they cancelled 2 hours of the bbc for it this evening - i wouldn't have minded if it had been actual reporting with actual footage of actual events but the events themselves (brown going into buck house, then leaving, cameron doing the same, both men making short speeches) weren't that long so in reality all we got was various commentators waffling over footage of the outside of buck house - it got so bad that david dimbleby (who i think is great, generally) was reduced to reporting on how red the asphalt on the mall looked, and how lovely the plane trees in st james' park were. i mean, seriously, you cancelled two hours of scheduling to talk about trees?!

    i think this is something a lot of people find difficult - the lib dems and labour are, while not exactly the same, relatively well aligned on politics in a centre-leftish position. the conservatives are the opposite of labour for sure and not exactly aligned with the lib dems, so the lib dems doing a deal with the conservatives does come across as a pretty massive shift away from all the principles that the lib dems were pushing for in their campaign.

    that said, clegg did say before the election that in this event he'd be morally obliged to try for a deal with whoever had the most seats so i do see where he's coming from. and if the lib dems can provide some counter to the conservatives, it might be ok i guess.

    well, i agree with it in that i know it happened! do i think it's right and what should've happened? probably not.

    as for brown - well no, he never had blair's clout but that's probably because he lacked blair's charisma - like him or not, blair was a very charismatic leader and was able to argue his case very efficiently and engagingly. brown was pretty good on economics but economics aren't really the most exciting aspect of politics and he isn't the most exciting of men, he wasn't affable enough to really engage people, and the only times he really tried to engage in a more personable, friendly way, it came over as so scripted and awkward people just didn't like it.

    his other big problem was that he was never elected - not just as PM, frankly in this country we never actually elect the PM, we elect whichever party we want in power, and whoever happens to be leader of that party becomes PM; however, he was never elected as party leader either. normally the party leader is chosen by a pretty rigorous within-party voting system, so when the public vote for a party they can be reasonably sure that whoever is leading it is trusted and mandated by the party as a whole. he never had that, he was just kind of appointed as successor to blair (which for a nominally socialist party is pretty shocking really).

    as for the change, well i can't stand david cameron, i'm very much anti- the tory party generally and i'm sad they've taken power. on the other hand, that is what was voted for (reasonably) democratically and so i have to accept it. i just hope we get a good new punk movement as a result :D

    that's not strictly true tho, hence all this stuff about electoral reform - which i'm all for, as it happens. i don't know whether PR is necessarily the best way to go but there are other systems to look at (personally i think STV is probably the best) and the FPTP system is ridiculous in any nation where there're more than 2 parties. winning the most seats doesn't necessarily mean winning the most votes - even winning a single seat doesn't, it just means the single highest percentage - ie if you get 26% of the vote and 2 other parties get 24% each, with anyone else making up the rest, you still win, even though only 26% of voters actually wanted you, which is far from a majority. this is why marginal seats are so hotly fought, because a vote difference of 1-2% really can cause a total change. PR is far from ideal, partly because it doesn't allow anyone outright power (although in some ways that could be a good thing, but it can mean you never get any real authority in government), but there are various other systems too. i studied them all for my first politics degree, but it was so long ago (and quite frankly, so dull) that i've forgotten how all the various systems work. but this is quite a useful guide:

    http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2010
  14. Desertwind

    Desertwind Head of the Day Shift

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    Messages:
    19,261
    Likes Received:
    0
    So and [BTW thank's for all your riveting comments]. Who is the new British leader? This is so confusing for me. I've got a friend who's in touch with a cute guy from England, she found on FACEBOOK she told me his city, but I forget, anyway I asked her to ask him what and who he liked he said "no one":eek:and what he thought of Tony Blair, he goes "he had his head to far up Bush's arse":lol: I think that was strickly politics as usual.. Is everyone happy or confused or neutral or don't care? keep us posted on the happenings OK;)
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2010
  15. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    the new prime minister is david cameron, conservative party, but because he didn't get an outright majority, he's had to form a coalition government with the liberal democrats (who, imho, are ideologically opposed to him), so the new deputy pm (i guess something like the vice president) is nick clegg of the lib dem party.

    i agree with your friend about blair (and i guess a lot of british people probably do!) - he was far too keen to do what america wanted all the time, sometimes even when it seemed to go against (a) the best interests of the uk and (b) what the citizens of the uk wanted. as a representative of the people (which is what the PM essentially is) he messed up badly on that score.

    i think people are confused, we've not had a hung parliament in a very long time and it's usually not something that lasts long or is very stable. i wouldn't be surprised if there was another general election quite soon.

    i wonder what city your friend's cute boy is in... i'm in london so i guess i'm close to all the action, geographically at least ;)
     

Share This Page