Question Time

Post by **Kaylee** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:12 pm

hee hee I giggled my way through most of it, a few good zingers at Blair but mostly nothing unusual. imo:

Kennedy- nice guy, positive sounding ideas but in the end inconsequential due to our voting system.

Howard- doom-mongering Daily Mail inspired waffle.

Blair- still trying to play the "I'm a nice guy and do what's best!" despite the fact patently nobody believed a word he said and had precious little patience for his policies.

Thoughts from anyone else who watched it?

{And i attached a poll for the sake of something to do...}

Predabot · Post by **Predabot** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:40 pm

Vote green! That's what I will do!

Um, what? I wont be fiddling with no voting-system for a completely alien and different country than my own...

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:50 pm

I only saw it from part-way through Howard's bit. I agree with your assessment of how both he and Blair came across. I'm currently intending to vote Lib Dem. However, ff there was a green candidate in my constituency, then I might well be voting for them instead.

Incidentally, I came across this nice little questionaire at http://www.politicalsurvey2005.com/ - it shows where you are on the political spectrum, and which party's supporters you most agree with. (NB, this is showing how well you fit the party's supporters, which doesn't necessarily mean how well you support the party itself).

I came out as:

Crime and punishment, internationalism
Your position on this axis is -5.0
You are likely to be fairly internationalist and rehabilitationist.

Economics, etc
Your position on this axis is -2.2
You are likely to be fairly socialist and anti-war.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:19 pm

I was watching The Rookie.

Crime and punishment, internationalism
Your position on this axis is -2.2
You are likely to be slightly internationalist and rehabilitationist.

Economics, etc
Your position on this axis is -0.3
You are likely to be centrist.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:31 am

I got

Crime and punishment, internationalism
Your position on this axis is -3.1
You are likely to be fairly internationalist and rehabilitationist.

Economics, etc
Your position on this axis is 1.2
You are likely to be slightly free-market and pro-war.

However some of the questions are loaded and too simplistic. And considering one of them was "Do you think the UK was right to go to war in Iraq?" and I answered strongly in the negative how did it decide I was likely to be pro-war?

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:26 am

Karl Lynch wrote:However some of the questions are loaded and too simplistic. And considering one of them was "Do you think the UK was right to go to war in Iraq?" and I answered strongly in the negative how did it decide I was likely to be pro-war?

The two measurements are roughly where you stand on a particular spectrum of opinion. They've identified free market ideas with pro-war ideas, so you must have answered a fair number of questions in a pro-free-market way.

Post by **Kaylee** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:51 am

I gathered that, I don't understand why they consider the two options mutually exclusive. I'm generally considered a libertarian, I support free trade and the free market as well as a small state which serves mainly only to protect the rights of the individual. I just don't like generalisations, I get enough of them with my car insurance.

"Your a man, you're premium must be higher!"
Why?
"Because men have more costly accidents, it's a fact!"
I've never had an accident, you're applying an unfair generalisation to me because I do not fit the generalisation.

I must be able to sue for sexism or something...

Legion · Post by **Legion** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:22 pm

out of the three Kennedy came across as the most honest and likeable, howard was his typical out of touch (with reality) self and blair was his usual grinning maniac self and sweating like a bastard.

liked the way both howard and blair were booed when they came on.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:46 pm

i only caught the end - Blair came across as a ****.

his answer on Universities was appalling.

for teh most part i was watching Blade 3. It was ok but not great.

Guardian Tomorrow:

Transfans Poll Gives Liberals 4 point lead.

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:00 pm

I still say we start the Transfans Party. (and I don't mean 'Pahtae!)

Post by **Best First** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:04 pm

Transfans is a one party state...

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:27 pm

Best First wrote:Transfans is a one party state...

Am I invited? I have balloons...

Hound · Post by **Hound** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:28 pm

I vote lib dem

my Dad votes BNP

Autobloke · Post by **Autobloke** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:29 pm

I just flip a coin to decide.

Post by **Best First** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:57 pm

Hound wrote:I vote lib dem

my Dad votes BNP

dude...

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:18 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:I gathered that, I don't understand why they consider the two options mutually exclusive. I'm generally considered a libertarian, I support free trade and the free market as well as a small state which serves mainly only to protect the rights of the individual. I just don't like generalisations, I get enough of them with my car insurance.

I think it's because there's a big correlation between the two points of view in the electorate as a whole. Anti-war correlates strongly with left-wing economics, and pro-war correlates strongly with right-wing economics.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:57 pm

So, although they've portrayed the two axes as being perpendicular to each other, the truth is they are probably nearer to being parallel?

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:55 am

I doubt I'll actually be bothered to vote. Actually only to reduce the Labour majority so Blair doesn't continue to run riot for another 5 years.

Bouncelot · Post by **Bouncelot** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:03 am

Rebis wrote:So, although they've portrayed the two axes as being perpendicular to each other, the truth is they are probably nearer to being parallel?

No, pro-war and free-market define the second axis, whilst the first axis is defined by internationalism and rehabilitationism - basically views that go together very often.

Jetfire wrote:I doubt I'll actually be bothered to vote. Actually only to reduce the Labour majority so Blair doesn't continue to run riot for another 5 years.

At least spoil your ballot paper rather than not bothering with the election at all.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:42 am

For what?

I want a right to a "no vote" option. I think elections should be so important that we call a bank holiday and everybody has to vote. I believe in Australia everybody ;egally has top vote.

I intend to vote, if only that labour must get their majority reduced and Torie policies on Education and Crime (if nothing else) are spot on ideads to improve things IMO.

Post by **Kaylee** » Sat Apr 30, 2005 12:56 pm

I think that the proportion of votes should be taken out of the whole voting population, not just those who voted.

So rather than saying Labout got 40% of the vote, we should include everyone who didn't vote so they only got about 20%. Then on those terms we say a. unless we get at least a 70% turnout the vote is invalid and b. unless one party gets more than 50% of the vote (i.e. an actual majority) they have to form a coalition and produce policies which are a compromise rather than one minority party getting its own way.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:unless we get at least a 70% turnout the vote is invalid

And what happens if we get a less than 70% turnout? A re-vote? And if that is <70%? Vote again? What if there's never a 70+% turnout? What then? vote infinitum?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon May 02, 2005 10:04 pm

Rebis wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:unless we get at least a 70% turnout the vote is invalid
And what happens if we get a less than 70% turnout? A re-vote? And if that is <70%? Vote again? What if there's never a 70+% turnout? What then? vote infinitum?

Simply, yes imo.

I don't believe a government should be elected unless what imo is a reasonable portion of the country actually vote. In fact make it mandatory and you solve the problem.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 02, 2005 10:21 pm

So, there's a possiblity, that there could be 'vote infinitum'. Surely that would be detrimental, in the long run? And armed with that knowledge, surely that would encourage some groups not to vote?

How would you enforce mandatory voting, btw? Employ the Vote Police to frogmarch every voter to a polling booth?

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon May 02, 2005 10:24 pm

Register everyone who votes, ticking their name off against the electoral roll, and anyone who doesnt vote gets a £100 fine. Money goes to charity. Booya!

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon May 02, 2005 10:32 pm

It hasn't worked to curtail speeding, so far.

Post by **Kaylee** » Mon May 02, 2005 11:27 pm

Rebis wrote:It hasn't worked to curtail speeding, so far.

TBH I'd argue we have the sfaest roads in Europe. I don't think fines and cameras will make them safer as they're currently about as safe statistically speaking as you can get them imo. However I'd propose that fines for speeding have helped get the current accident rate to where it is. It's a bit of a clunky analogy tho as you're dealing with a crime which is hard to effectively monitor continually (speed cameras and guns are only used in specific areas) whereas its cut and dry whether someone turned up at a polling station and made their mark, even if its just for the Raving Loony Party.

Couple that with the problems of tracking unregistered/unlicenced cars...

Post by **Best First** » Tue May 03, 2005 1:12 pm

Karl Lynch wrote:
Rebis wrote:
Karl Lynch wrote:unless we get at least a 70% turnout the vote is invalid
And what happens if we get a less than 70% turnout? A re-vote? And if that is <70%? Vote again? What if there's never a 70+% turnout? What then? vote infinitum?
Simply, yes imo.

I don't believe a government should be elected unless what imo is a reasonable portion of the country actually vote. In fact make it mandatory and you solve the problem.

so we get stuck with Tony forever?

Post by **Kaylee** » Tue May 03, 2005 1:13 pm

Possibly even longer!

Post by **Best First** » Tue May 03, 2005 1:43 pm

egads. then i have to say your system is even worse than the current one.

TransFans.co.uk

Question Time

Voting plans for May 5th?