Englands Prime-minister

[megabad]

first off, if you are English then you can say whatever you wish. If you are american then dont insult us, you will pay dearly! if you are from any other country, your somewhere in the middle.

I was talking to my brother earlyer about the prime minister and i brought up the point that not only now are we being rules by a man we didn't vote for, when we do ask for a vote he denys us it! it isnt imperalism, it isnt democracy, what is it?

i want to hear YOUR point. If you think he has done enough, To little, if think have deteriorated since he was in office. i think that if we ask for a vote then we should get one! but things were getting pritty bad when tony blair was in office.

[K-RadPie]

At 1/7/08 05:23 PM, megabad wrote: If you are american then dont insult us, you will pay dearly!

Fag.

Lol what are you gonna do about it?

[LordJaric]

At 1/7/08 05:28 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 1/7/08 05:23 PM, megabad wrote: If you are american then dont insult us, you will pay dearly!

Fag.

Lol what are you gonna do about it?

Saw that comeing from a mile away.

[Britkid]

Apart from we don't vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for a political party and a government. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party. Tony Blair stood down so the Labour party, which had been voted in, decided that Brown was the best replacement. Even though there wasn't a referendum, this was because all of his possible opponents knew they wouldn't win it.

[morefngdbs]

At 1/7/08 05:51 PM, TheRoyalEnglishman wrote: Apart from we don't vote for a Prime Minister, we vote for a political party and a government. The Prime Minister is just the leader of the party.

;
Ah ,Yes the 'Party' system isn't it grand...our F&^#$D up system here in Canada is based on yours & it F&^#$N blows, in my opinion.
BUT that is deliberate.
They don't want a democratically elected group of individuals with all the same rights etc. the only way you can control the elected officials is to have a system in place(hence a 'Party') where if you don't toe the 'Party' line your out on your ass & alone dude.
Can you imagine how pissed they (the back room boys who are in control of the Party ) would be if they couldn't have a leash on the so called Governing Officials.
We vote who they tell us were allowed to vote for , not who we might have picked... that person never ever even makes it onto the ballot.

[Brick-top]

I'm gonna say this again,

So it's Englands Prime Minister is it? When did this happen?

[TheRealEggman]

At 1/7/08 05:23 PM, megabad wrote: ALLAH HU ACKBAR!!!!!!!

there, i translated what you're really saying to us.

[ThePretenders]

Why do English people always about England, when you mean the UK. English government bla, bla bla.... English army bla, bla, bla.... England's empire bla, bla, bla. England is the only country in the UK that doesn't have a government. No even bothers to celebrate that fucking mythological middle easterner, St George becuase it is not an official holiday. No wonder Americans confuse England with the UK, when English people make statements like this.

[BioEthanol]

i am english but i think that the prime minister is a stupid left wing retard.

Ban the fox hunting ban who cares about foxes anyway, kill em i say

[Clown-aRound]

Personally, my personal life hasn't been effected by the him. At least not yet.
Just hear stuff in the media about him, but that is about it.

Though I do think it was weird that we didn't get to vote for him and he refuses a vote when we ask.

Its almost like we are turning into America. I hope for God's or Satan's sake that we never reach that point.

[D2Kvirus]

The real issue with Gordon Brown is that he makes John Major look like a political heavyweight in comparison. Allow me to demonstrate:

John Major: Took over from Thatcher after a decade-long Premiership, clears out all the Thatcherite yes men to make his own cabinet, and calls a snap General Election, which he won, in order to start his Premiership with a clean slate.

Gordon Brown: Took over from Blair after a decade-long Premiership, kept a fair number of the Blairite yes men in his cabinet, and says he didn't need to call a General Election as he feels he didn't need one because he's doing a good job - and has been battered by David Cameron ever since.

As with Major, he wasn't an elected Prime Minister, he was Shadow Head of the Treasury when Major was Secretary of State of the Treasury, but while Major at least had the courage to create his own government and move on from the Thatcher years, Brown doesn't and remains a relic of the Blair years.

[Slizor]

John Major: Took over from Thatcher after a decade-long Premiership, clears out all the Thatcherite yes men to make his own cabinet, and calls a snap General Election, which he won, in order to start his Premiership with a clean slate.

John Major didn't call an election until after he had been in power for 2 years and the 5-year term was up.
1987 election
1990 Major comes to power
1992 election

[GreyFlag]

Oh god, Gordon Brown shouldn't be Prime Minister. And all of the data disc trouble (ok maybe not his fault) and his persuading India to be more liberal. Bah! And everything's just messed up because Labour think that they're conservative, lib dem are more left wing and the conservatives don't know what to do.

David Cameron is sooooooooo confused. All policies are way too messed up!

[KeithHybrid]

OP: There's kinda the same thing in America, in which you can't vote until you reach the legal voting age. Isn't there something like that in England?

Heh, yeah, firstly it's the UK.

I actually don't think too badly of the prime minister. Sure we didn't vote for him, but we voted for the party as TheRoyalEnglishman mentioned. Besides, I'll probably be able to vote in the next election, so I can finally have a small (teeny) say!

I think some of the catastrophes have been bad luck really. Firstly there were the failed terrorist attacks, followed by floods, then the data disc misplacement, followed by "Donorgate". In regards to these, it's a bit of a "D'oh!" moment for Brown, since Labour were ahead on points before the scandals.

[Kai-Zen]

English people can be just as stupid as American people.

Well, maybe not THAT stupid.

But we have out moments.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

england blows lol

[cellardoor6]

At 1/21/08 04:42 PM, Kai-Zen wrote: English people can be just as stupid as American people.

Well, maybe not THAT stupid.

Actually you can be... and are far more stupid. But in order to cope with your inferiority to and dependence on the US, your society tries to pretend Americans are stupid. British people as a whole self-delude. It's more convenient and comfortable that way, otherwise you'd have to accept reality... a reality which would be incredibly harsh on your pride. So you make comedy shows and jokes about dumb Americans, ignorant of the fact that Americans are more educated.

Anyway, what I find funny about the UK system is you're still technically a monarchy, your head of state is the Queen of England. However, we all know that the Queen doesn't execute her powers, and the Prime Minister is the de facto head of state. But what's even funnier is that you don't even vote for the PM directly... you vote for members of parliament who in turn appoint the PM.

Your "democracy" is the lowest form that can still be labeled as such.

[ImaSmartass2]

At 1/8/08 02:08 PM, BioEthanol wrote: i am english but i think that the prime minister is a stupid left wing retard.

Ban the fox hunting ban who cares about foxes anyway, kill em i say

I don't care about you, who cares about you anyways? Kill you I say. Moron.

At 1/21/08 05:37 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: your society tries to pretend Americans are stupid.

That's a bit of a generalisation. I'm English, but I know plenty of decent Americans, and I respect American culture very much. Sure, we have a fairly large number of people who dislike Americans for next to no reason, but meh, that's the UK; we supposedly hate quite a few nations, including each other.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/21/08 05:59 PM, Scarab-Stalk33r wrote:

At 1/21/08 05:37 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: your society tries to pretend Americans are stupid.

That's a bit of a generalisation.

That's because I'm talking about a larger societal view. Of course there will be exceptions with individuals.

But the way that America is depicted in the UK is pretty widespread and mainstream.. depicting Americans as fat, stupid, uneducated, lazy etc... They create this image by distorting the facts, and intentionally leaving out contextual information. If there was an open, honest view of America, it would make British people aware that their own problems are worse.

Bashing America is a diversion from people's own problems, America is their scapegoat.

I'm English, but I know plenty of decent Americans, and I respect American culture very much. Sure, we have a fairly large number of people who dislike Americans for next to no reason, but meh, that's the UK; we supposedly hate quite a few nations, including each other.

The disliking of Americans is way more malevolent and obsessive in the UK than it is concerning the dislike of other countries and cultures.

[GreyFlag]

Ok guys, we all need to calm down. I'm english, and no that is not how we think of Americans. Yes we have a crap government system but it's not stopped us so far. One little thing...

Your "democracy" is the lowest form that can still be labeled as such.

Ok, but why is democracy the right way forward? It's just an interesting political point: we in the Western and so-called liberal societies assume that democracy is the most free political system. How can it be: there's nearly always a minority. And nothing can be done to prevent that in a democracy. So it's not all that liberal is it... (just a thought...)

At 1/22/08 11:55 AM, GreyFlag wrote: Ok, but why is democracy the right way forward? It's just an interesting political point: we in the Western and so-called liberal societies assume that democracy is the most free political system. How can it be: there's nearly always a minority. And nothing can be done to prevent that in a democracy. So it's not all that liberal is it... (just a thought...)

Oh yeah, the way things are currently working out in British politics is a shambles really. No party is who they say they are, everyone gets mixed up with bashing each party's leaders. In regards to minorities, I find that many do succeed with the majority... which then turns the minority into the majority and vice versa!

This is why I barely touch our politics related stuff. I'd better at arguing if from a sociological perspective or something.

[cellardoor6]

At 1/22/08 11:55 AM, GreyFlag wrote:

Your "democracy" is the lowest form that can still be labeled as such.

Ok, but why is democracy the right way forward?

It's the only kind of system where the people can maintain their own government.

It's just an interesting political point: we in the Western and so-called liberal societies assume that democracy is the most free political system.

Lol, democracy in the modern sense is simply a country where the people elect their government, so that the people are in essence governing themselves. This makes it so that the government represents the people as a whole, rather than having a government that imposes its will on the people without any legitimacy.

How can it be: there's nearly always a minority.

Lol and in a undemocratic system, a minority rules over the majority. When a government isn't democratically elected, and gains its power by dominance rather than consent, it can force everyone into one common cause and erase the influence any real minority as far as public thought.

That's not a good thing.

And nothing can be done to prevent that in a democracy.

There will always be disagreements, it's not the job of a government to prevent people from having different beliefs. The job of a government is to reflect the views and beliefs of the people as best as they can, and that is where elections and voting comes in, it allows the people to influence the government, and vote based on their own views.

So it's not all that liberal is it... (just a thought...)

Yes, the ultra-liberal form of government FORCES people to all have the same views, or at least the same actionable views.

[GreyFlag]

Oh yeah, the way things are currently working out in British politics is a shambles really. No party is who they say they are, everyone gets mixed up with bashing each party's leaders. In regards to minorities, I find that many do succeed with the majority... which then turns the minority into the majority and vice versa!

This is why I barely touch our politics related stuff. I'd better at arguing if from a sociological perspective or something.

Yeah, I totally agree! But what do you think happens when there's a general election? Do people base their vote on the party's manifesto or on the party's pre-determined wing or what? Some people base it on how cool the party leader is. (ok there are loads of reasons.)
What I'm saying is, government is at the bottom of people's agendas. Most people (I reckon) are quite passive to our current government. This is my impression, chances are I'm wrong.

Soon as I can vote, it's the Monster Raving Loony Party. Get In!

[Drakim]

At 1/22/08 03:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 1/22/08 11:55 AM, GreyFlag wrote:

Your "democracy" is the lowest form that can still be labeled as such.

Ok, but why is democracy the right way forward?

It's the only kind of system where the people can maintain their own government.

It's just an interesting political point: we in the Western and so-called liberal societies assume that democracy is the most free political system.

Lol, democracy in the modern sense is simply a country where the people elect their government, so that the people are in essence governing themselves. This makes it so that the government represents the people as a whole, rather than having a government that imposes its will on the people without any legitimacy.

Well, there is one flaw. Long election periods makes this benefit fade. Even though most people in the US disagrees with President Bush on the big active issues, he still represents them.

How can it be: there's nearly always a minority.

Lol and in a undemocratic system, a minority rules over the majority. When a government isn't democratically elected, and gains its power by dominance rather than consent, it can force everyone into one common cause and erase the influence any real minority as far as public thought.

That's not a good thing.

And nothing can be done to prevent that in a democracy.

Indeed. Democracy isn't perfect, but I don't see any other system that is better. Letting one man rule like a dictator? How would we ensure that this man is actually good at ruling? How can we ensure anything when we don't have any influence, and the current leader is elected by guns?

There will always be disagreements, it's not the job of a government to prevent people from having different beliefs. The job of a government is to reflect the views and beliefs of the people as best as they can, and that is where elections and voting comes in, it allows the people to influence the government, and vote based on their own views.

Hehe, if they do that, people scream "FLIP FLOPPERS!". But, I personally have to agree. I like it when the goverment actually represents the people.

So it's not all that liberal is it... (just a thought...)

Yes, the ultra-liberal form of government FORCES people to all have the same views, or at least the same actionable views.

The ultra conservative isn't much better, since they ban anything they don't like with law.

But I'd argue that ultra anything isn't good. The world is simply not black and white enough for such views to work in practice.

[GreyFlag]

Lol and in a undemocratic system, a minority rules over the majority. When a government isn't democratically elected, and gains its power by dominance rather than consent, it can force everyone into one common cause and erase the influence any real minority as far as public thought.

That's not a good thing.

And nothing can be done to prevent that in a democracy.

Indeed. Democracy isn't perfect, but I don't see any other system that is better. Letting one man rule like a dictator? How would we ensure that this man is actually good at ruling? How can we ensure anything when we don't have any influence, and the current leader is elected by guns?

How about Plato's Philosopher Kings? I'll answer that myself. You can't have a benevolent dictator because: there will always be cases where a minority is excluded even in this case; people have rights as to who is in power (social contract and all that); who's to say they don't get corrupt or insane? I have no idea why I wrote this cos i just wrote my own antithesis...

But I'd argue that ultra anything isn't good. The world is simply not black and white enough for such views to work in practice.

Agreed. But is it the fact that society has formed all of these opinions, or could they always have existed but previous societies suppressed them?

[D2Kvirus]

In unrelated news, Gordon Brown is the latest "celebrity" to get drafted in to do a pointless, five-second long spot in shark-jumping spectacular, The Simpsons.

Joy?

[Jargonmaster]

At 1/21/08 06:35 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: But the way that America is depicted in the UK is pretty widespread and mainstream.. depicting Americans as fat, stupid, uneducated, lazy etc... They create this image by distorting the facts, and intentionally leaving out contextual information. If there was an open, honest view of America, it would make British people aware that their own problems are worse.

oh no poor old helpless america got its feelings hurt WON'T ANYBODY CARE FOR THE WORLD'S MOST DEFENCELESS HYPERPOWER?????????////

At 1/23/08 10:45 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: In unrelated news, Gordon Brown is the latest "celebrity" to get drafted in to do a pointless, five-second long spot in shark-jumping spectacular, The Simpsons.

Joy?

Let's just hope this time it doesn't involve a jetpack.