HabboxWiki needs you!
Are you a Habbo buff? Or maybe a rare trader with a bunch of LTDs? Get involved with HabboxWiki to share your knowledge!
Join our team!
Whether you're raving for rares, excited for events or happy helping, there's something for you! Click here to apply
Need a helping hand?
Check out our guides for all things to help you make friends, make rooms, and make money!


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23
  1. #1
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default Conservatives hit 45%

    Wow. There's rumours Number 10 might be tempted to call a General Election too after Article 50 is triggered.

    I'm usually against governments having absurdly big majorities in the Commons as it means the executive becomes far too powerful. However, can you imagine the reaction of all the Corbyn students to an electoral wipeout we haven't seen before? It'd be hilarious. I have a few on Facebook always liking Independent articles about Labour/Corbyn and they don't realise how detatched they are from the rest of the country - just like with the referendum. The reaction would be popcorn time.

    If a General Election were called tomorrow I would be voting Tory for the first time. Thoughts?


    Like Landon Liked

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    It's such a joke. Theresa May seems to get a pass on her empty phrases and poor performance simply because most people seem to think Labour is the only other party, which is in a far worse state. If these numbers stick then I might have to consider voting a party over an independent candidate, hell I might even have to help.

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    I'm usually against governments having absurdly big majorities in the Commons as it means the executive becomes far too powerful.
    And yet you support FPTP
    nice lmao

  3. #3
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    And yet you support FPTP

    nice lmao
    Better a strong executive now and again under FPTP than perpetual PR government-held-to-ransom by Nicola Sturgeon....



  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    Better a strong executive now and again under FPTP than perpetual PR government-held-to-ransom by Nicola Sturgeon....
    Nice bit of short term thinking there, and basically you being content with ignoring a large chunk of the populace. But even if we look at the previous election, assuming a 1:1 vote to seat ratio, they would have got 30 seats instead of 56 so I don't see the point you're really trying to make.

    After a quick google, this is what it would roughly look like (though I'm not exactly sure what system and methodology they're using)

    https://www.indy100.com/article/here...m--gJenQmaW2gW

    So by your logic, it would actually be a perpetual PR government held to ransom by Paul Nuttall. But that's OK because it suits your agenda?

    In another reply to the original post, doesn't look like it's happening. The more I think about it too, the more I think how irresponsible it would be to hold one after triggering Article 50 too.

  5. #5
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    Nice bit of short term thinking there, and basically you being content with ignoring a large chunk of the populace. But even if we look at the previous election, assuming a 1:1 vote to seat ratio, they would have got 30 seats instead of 56 so I don't see the point you're really trying to make.
    The point I am making is that you saying FPTP can give large majorities thus resulting in a strong executive is entirely true. However, it is preferable to a situation like in the Netherlands of months of coalition building and failed parties remaining in office. It's a nightmare. Large majorities can be avoided if both the main parties are capable, which the Labour Party currently is not.

    I am a supporter of the Conservatives but I would much rather they had a say 25-seat majority than a Blairish majority of 100+ proportions which means the executive is handed far too much power.

    Quote Originally Posted by dgbtz
    After a quick google, this is what it would roughly look like (though I'm not exactly sure what system and methodology they're using)

    https://www.indy100.com/article/here...m--gJenQmaW2gW

    So by your logic, it would actually be a perpetual PR government held to ransom by Paul Nuttall. But that's OK because it suits your agenda?
    Not at all. I never complained about Ukip's lack of seats following the 2015 General Election because how could I? I support FPTP. The failure of Ukip to gain any seats was down to a vote squeeze and a lack of good campaigning in target seats. I am all for pressure being applied to the major parties - they need it - but it doesn't mean me wanting to hand over control of government to all sorts engaging in dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building. As Ukip proved, you don't even need seats to successfully campaign for a change.



  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    The point I am making is that you saying FPTP can give large majorities thus resulting in a strong executive is entirely true. However, it is preferable to a situation like in the Netherlands of months of coalition building and failed parties remaining in office. It's a nightmare. Large majorities can be avoided if both the main parties are capable, which the Labour Party currently is not.

    I am a supporter of the Conservatives but I would much rather they had a say 25-seat majority than a Blairish majority of 100+ proportions which means the executive is handed far too much power.
    Define "failed parties".

    Not at all. I never complained about Ukip's lack of seats following the 2015 General Election because how could I? I support FPTP. The failure of Ukip to gain any seats was down to a vote squeeze and a lack of good campaigning in target seats. I am all for pressure being applied to the major parties - they need it - but it doesn't mean me wanting to hand over control of government to all sorts engaging in dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building. As Ukip proved, you don't even need seats to successfully campaign for a change.
    Then why use Sturgeon over Nuttall in your example, despite the fact UKIP would have many more seats? Because you disagree with her, right?
    You can claim that's the reason UKIP didn't gain many seats, but equally I can just state it's down to a system which punishes smaller parties with a greater spread of support. FPTP is not fit for purpose when there's more than 2 significant parties. You don't want "dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building" (which is basically a negative way of saying "cooperating"), but you're basically happy for a government which does not have support of the majority to just force through any policy they want? At least with the Brexit vote you can claim the 52% is entirely legitimate, but I don't see how you can accept a government with a sub-50% vote share and claim that's democratic.

  7. #7
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz View Post
    Define "failed parties".
    A party which has plummeted to such low levels of support after a period in office. For example, the Liberal Democrats in this country or the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) which has gone from a governing party to commanding a pitiful 6% of the national vote. Under FPTP, these parties are rightfully kept out of power after being so categorically rejected by the electorate - but under PR they could be essential to forming a government, meaning the hated party that was just outright rejected by the electorate... ends up in government again. That's not good for democracy.

    FPTP only becomes a problem when the two main parties are in complete agreement with one another, as was until recently the case. Now the country has a clear choice in a to-be sovereign country again between a right-wing Conservative government and a left-wing Labour Party rather than what we've had for a while of two centre-left Blairite parties with many laws coming from Brussels anyway. The rise of Ukip and the subsequent referendum has corrected this, as was the case in 1990s Australia with the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party resulting in the movement of the Liberal-National Party back to the right and the election of John Howard as PM.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    Then why use Sturgeon over Nuttall in your example, despite the fact UKIP would have many more seats? Because you disagree with her, right?
    You can use any example, the same applies. I use the SNP example because there's the added factor of them being a separatist party meaning any coalition building would result in them pulling at the British constitution - Sturgeon's party isn't simply wanting a different direction for the country, she actively wants to break it up. Handing separatist and sectarian parties power would quickly result in the unravelling of the British state as ground would need to be constantly given to them just to form a stable government. The Belgian Kingdom is a key example of this where the realm itself nearly collapsed a few years ago when a government could not be formed due to separatist demands.

    Quote Originally Posted by dbgtz
    You can claim that's the reason UKIP didn't gain many seats, but equally I can just state it's down to a system which punishes smaller parties with a greater spread of support. FPTP is not fit for purpose when there's more than 2 significant parties. You don't want "dodgy backroom dealing/coalition building" (which is basically a negative way of saying "cooperating"), but you're basically happy for a government which does not have support of the majority to just force through any policy they want? At least with the Brexit vote you can claim the 52% is entirely legitimate, but I don't see how you can accept a government with a sub-50% vote share and claim that's democratic.
    If you believe the parties will "co-operate" for the good of the country rather than "backroom deal" for power then.... well. I don't claim FPTP is perfect of course, but after being in favour of PR I have come to realise it is much better.
    Last edited by -:Undertaker:-; 20-03-2017 at 07:16 PM.


    Like Landon Liked

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    209
    Tokens
    1,451
    Habbo
    hungryfront

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    I mean if you're up for a government that lies about saving the NHS (and most of the EU referendum), sure. Otherwise if you want people to be entitled to education and healthcare, vote Green or at least Labour.

    Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
    just here to be political considering there's been a pretty one-sided viewpoint on here for a couple of years x

  9. #9
    -:Undertaker:-'s Avatar
    -:Undertaker:- is offline Habbox Hall of Fame Inductee
    Former Rare Values Manager
    HabboxForum Top Poster
    Articles Writer


    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Mijas, the Kingdom of Spain
    Country
    Spain
    Posts
    28,666
    Tokens
    180
    Habbo
    -:overtaker:-

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hungryfront View Post
    I mean if you're up for a government that lies about saving the NHS (and most of the EU referendum), sure. Otherwise if you want people to be entitled to education and healthcare, vote Green or at least Labour.

    Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
    Vote Labour for unlimited third world mass immigration leaving the British people unable to access education and healthcare.



  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    England, UK
    Posts
    12,313
    Tokens
    33,472
    Habbo
    dbgtz

    Latest Awards:

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:- View Post
    A party which has plummeted to such low levels of support after a period in office. For example, the Liberal Democrats in this country or the PvdA (Dutch Labour Party) which has gone from a governing party to commanding a pitiful 6% of the national vote. Under FPTP, these parties are rightfully kept out of power after being so categorically rejected by the electorate - but under PR they could be essential to forming a government, meaning the hated party that was just outright rejected by the electorate... ends up in government again. That's not good for democracy.
    But what is "low levels"? Do they have to have had good support to begin with? Is the SNP, who got fewer votes than the Lib Dems but more seats a failed party? What you're saying is a farce. What you're saying is we should all align ourselves to suit the structure of our system rather than shaping the system that allows more than 2 choices, and let's not forget how often Labour and Conservatives seem similar, as I believe even you've said before. So you're literally advocating we should just accept these 2 similar parties who offer no real choice should be allowed complete and utter control.

    You mention outright rejected, but if they have seats then they haven't been outright rejected. In fact, they have more of a mandate to be in power in that PR system than our current government who doesn't even form a majority of the votes does! I don't get how blind you have to be to not see that.

    FPTP only becomes a problem when the two main parties are in complete agreement with one another, as was until recently the case. Now the country has a clear choice in a to-be sovereign country again between a right-wing Conservative government and a left-wing Labour Party rather than what we've had for a while of two centre-left Blairite parties with many laws coming from Brussels anyway. The rise of Ukip and the subsequent referendum has corrected this, as was the case in 1990s Australia with the rise of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party resulting in the movement of the Liberal-National Party back to the right and the election of John Howard as PM.
    FPTP becomes a problem when any issue isn't a binary choice, which is almost every major issue. As a slightly made up example, we will take healthcare which could be: a completely private-sector based system; a system similar to country X; the weird mix we have at the moment where most if it is run by the state but aspects privatised or 100% state owned. Right wing and left wing doesn't cut it for the people in the centre either, nor can you even really look at ideology on a 1d plane as you should know.

    You can use any example, the same applies. I use the SNP example because there's the added factor of them being a separatist party meaning any coalition building would result in them pulling at the British constitution - Sturgeon's party isn't simply wanting a different direction for the country, she actively wants to break it up. Handing separatist and sectarian parties power would quickly result in the unravelling of the British state as ground would need to be constantly given to them just to form a stable government. The Belgian Kingdom is a key example of this where the realm itself nearly collapsed a few years ago when a government could not be formed due to separatist demands.
    I would like to say you've literally supported a party and movement which has not only re-triggered this Scottish independence movement, but has put Northern Ireland into question too. There's also the possibility of, should the SNP form a small part of government, then their whole rhetoric about Westminster would lose credibility. Having said that, lots of people believed the rhetoric about the EU so maybe not.

    If you believe the parties will "co-operate" for the good of the country rather than "backroom deal" for power then.... well. I don't claim FPTP is perfect of course, but after being in favour of PR I have come to realise it is much better.
    Did I ever mention anything about cooperating for the good of the country? I simply said cooperate. Most politicians are sleazy, but PR would quite frankly limit their power.

    I still want to see how you claim FPTP is democratic though, for someone who so heavily believes in the will of the people

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •