NeoGAF

I preferred ConDem. Fits like a glove.

Originally Posted by gcubed

as an outsider, are there any links or anyone willing to throw up an explanation on whats going on with this? How is it currently and what is AV+ and STV... all i heard on the news here was that the Tories are pushing through reform that could cost them seats in the next election

lots of good information here about what these systems are.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

we currently use first past the post. the lib dems propose having STV, labour have in the past considered AV+, but at the last election proposed AV, and though the tories don't want any change to the voting system, the lib-con deal is going forwards with a referendum on AV. it has been speculated that AV will lead to the tories losing out, because lib dem voters will be more likely to support labour as their second choice.

Originally Posted by iapetus

All the ministers in this coalition are multimillionaires, right?

Dare I say some of them may only have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pounds.

No doubt David Laws racked up several million a year at JP Morgan.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

The ministers have agreed to take a 5% paycut. How selfless of these multimillionaires to take a slight paycut.

We're going to get a lot of misuse of the word 'cut' over the next year or so. This is one of them.

None of these people were ministers before - so none of them got a ministerial salary. Now they are all getting a ministerial salary. So every one of them is getting a pay RISE.
They just aren't getting as big a rise as they would otherwise be entitled to. It isn't even true to say they're getting a lower rise than they expected, because it's been Tory policy all along and none of the LibDems expected to even be ministers.

That's not a cut. It's a rise.

Impressive PR though.

Originally Posted by phisheep

We're going to get a lot of misuse of the word 'cut' over the next year or so. This is one of them.

None of these people were ministers before - so none of them got a ministerial salary. Now they are all getting a ministerial salary. So every one of them is getting a pay RISE.
They just aren't getting as big a rise as they would otherwise be entitled to. It isn't even true to say they're getting a lower rise than they expected, because it's been Tory policy all along and none of the LibDems expected to even be ministers.

That's not a cut. It's a rise.

This is a really weird populist way of looking at things. I suppose with your logic everything balances out because all those Labour Ministers have taken pay cuts because they're no longer ministers?

The most objective way is to look at the actual salary of the ministers, as opposed to putting focus on the rotation of new ministers:
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/...ers-faq-page2/

How much do Cabinet Ministers get paid?

Cabinet ministers have been entitled to a salary of £145,492 (including MP's salary of £65,738) from 1 April 2010. Current ministers have agreed not to take the pay rise for 2010-11, either in their ministerial or parliamentary salaries.

So yes, the newly appointed ministers are getting a pay rise because they're now ministers, but the actual salary of the ministers have dropped.

Looking at the Arizona thread, America is basically what would happen to the UK if UKIP or BNP got into power.

Originally Posted by Chinner

This is a really weird populist way of looking at things.

It's a habit I got from spending about 10 years of my business life aggressively cutting costs. Very important to distinguish the overall impact on the organisation from the impact on individuals.

Many times I've walked into a meeting with a bunch of unhappy people and, after I'd worked out what was going on, was able to go around the table and tell each of them that they were individually better off (and by precisely how much) as a result of what we'd changed. Result - happy people.

Quite often the perception of cuts is far worse than the reality.

Originally Posted by Chinner

Looking at the Arizona thread, America is basically what would happen to the UK if UKIP or BNP got into power.

You mean, Arizona is.

Originally Posted by Chinner

Looking at the Arizona thread, America is basically what would happen to the UK if UKIP or BNP got into power.

Maybe, maybe. In their case I think it was kinda the opposite, a large portion of the country simply wasn't ready for a black president and now their racist tendencies have come to the fore in a desperate and ugly power struggle. Arizona just seems to be a lot crazier than the rest.

I honestly can't imagine the UK with UKIP or The BNP in power. We wouldn't last 3 months.

Originally Posted by David Cameron - speech to the department of buisness today

I see this as a big economic department with a huge task in front of it and I want you all to work together to deliver that. In doing so you have got an incredibly talented team of ministers. Vince Cable is an absolute star in terms of economic policy and economic thinking. He's demonstrated that over the last few years.

this is still too weird.

The whole deal of driving the british economy in a new direction away from financial services, and hopefully to new industry in the north, is one of the most important issues imo so its great to see Cable in there.

Originally Posted by Chinner

Truth hurts. To actually think New Labour are 'progressives' is a utter laugh. The whole point of the New Labour experiment is to make it more right wing and business orientated. Personally, I'd prefer if they just stopped and brought back the Old Labour or the New Old Labour or whatever.

I saw an interview, unfortunately I can't remember who it was with, where one of the big dogs in Labour party said that the new labour "experiment" was dead and they would be going back to their roots with the unions and focusing on the working man again.

I don't know if there will be any truth to that, it was a few hours after Cameron strolled into No.10, so it could well have been a reactionary statement. With Milibanana seemingly launching a leadership bid, I can't see it since he's a blairite as far as I'm aware?

As for this new Liberal Conservative government, I'm skeptical, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The only thing I'm really doubtful of is that fucking monkey Giddeon. Some of the better Lib-Dem ideas managed to make it through, which I'm happy about and I don't think any non-con supporter can say they wouldn't prefer a Lib-Con coalition rather than a Con majority.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

Dare I say some of them may only have hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Dare I say you may not have the slightest fucking clue and be making ridiculous assumptions as a result and maybe shouldn't have been making statements like that without knowing how many of them actually are multimillionaires?

Originally Posted by scotcheggz

I saw an interview, unfortunately I can't remember who it was with, where one of the big dogs in Labour party said that the new labour "experiment" was dead and they would be going back to their roots with the unions and focusing on the working man again.
.

was it john cruddas? if it was, i say this as he's exactly the sort of guy who'd state something like that, i wouldn't get your hopes up; he isn't going to win the leadership campaign, and the likely winner, david miliband, is a blairite.

Originally Posted by scotcheggz

As for this new Liberal Conservative government, I'm skeptical, but I'm open to being proved wrong. The only thing I'm really doubtful of is that fucking monkey Giddeon.

I'm hoping he does as little as possible. Considering he's got David Laws on one side and Vince Cable on the other, he should just let them do all the work. We'll be much better off if he does.

dp

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

Alright, alright - I was merely using hyperbole to demonstrate how a 5% paycut was little more than fluffy PR.

Edit: http://noto55.com/

So, apparently there are plans in the works that for a No Confidence vote to go through it would need 55% in the Commons. Huh. Interesting.

After all the talk of strong, stable government to then say you could carry on like that is very odd.Somebody said Scotland has that as well, but we were told the markets dont like it.

Originally Posted by PJV3

After all the talk of strong, stable government to then say you could carry on like that is very odd.

I suppose they'll try and sell it as a measure to 'ensure' stable government, even though any government that can't secure at least 50% in a confidence vote would definitely have a hard time getting its policies through the Commons.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

So, apparently there are plans in the works that for a No Confidence vote to go through it would need 55% in the Commons. Huh. Interesting.

This one seems very strange indeed, since there doesn't seem to be anything beyond the Parliamentary rules to say that the PM has to step down for a confidence motion anyway.

And it doesn't seem to me (legal hat on) that it is something you could legislate for either, because all Parliamentary votes are carried by a bare majority. So if a confidence vote doesn't reach 55% to take out the PM, all they have to do is have a bare majority vote to change the rule back to what is was before and then do the confidence vote again.

I await the detail with considerable interest.

Originally Posted by Empty

lots of good information here about what these systems are.

http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=5

we currently use first past the post. the lib dems propose having STV, labour have in the past considered AV+, but at the last election proposed AV, and though the tories don't want any change to the voting system, the lib-con deal is going forwards with a referendum on AV. it has been speculated that AV will lead to the tories losing out, because lib dem voters will be more likely to support labour as their second choice.

awesome, thanks for the link! I have been enlightened today, i had no idea

On the news a Tory MP was slagging off the Liberals and giving the coalition 2 years because Liberals don't like being unpopular.I wonder if Dave is going to have a word.

Originally Posted by PJV3

On the news a Tory MP was slagging off the Liberals and giving the coalition 2 years because Liberals don't like being unpopular.I wonder if Dave is going to have a word.

That's what they have party whips for. This'll be some fresh meat for Patrick McLoughlin.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

That's what they have party whips for. This'll be some fresh meat for Patrick McLoughlin.

The MP was funny in an Alan Clark way " unlike them we are capable of holding our noses to work together" Liberals stink.

I know we all love the election thread, it is a huge achievement in cross party coalition in achievement over 11k posts with little to no back deal posts. But today there is a new style of new thread posts, and we must be sure to embrace this.

tldr: post in this thread you fuckwits.

Originally Posted by SmokyDave

I honestly can't imagine the UK with UKIP or The BNP in power. We wouldn't last 3 months.

If the BNP got in, the resulting brain drain alone would cripple the country. I don't think I'd be alone in being on the first flight out of here.

Originally Posted by Chinner

I know we all love the election thread, it is a huge achievement in cross party coalition in achievement over 11k posts with little to no back deal posts. But today there is a new style of new thread posts, and we must be sure to embrace this.

tldr: post in this thread you fuckwits.

Thank you for explaining the situation so that even us American pigs can understand :lol

(and as stated above, the Governor of Arizona only governs Arizona)

Congrats on the coalition government.

Originally Posted by Subliminal

Gordon Brown.jpg.

I am having problems whipping the back benchers of the election thread into place.

Originally Posted by Chinner

I am having problems whipping the back benchers of the election thread into place.

Just watched the Boulton/Campbell video in full, hilarious. My friend and I act the same when we get drunk sometimes, I tell him to calm down, he gets angry at me for telling him to calm down, I laugh at him, he gets angrier... Nice to see grown men act the same way on live television. Campbell is a master troll.

Everyone up for Have I Got News For You tonight? Martin Clunes is hosting IIRC.

Originally Posted by Chinner

I am having problems whipping the back benchers of the election thread into place.

You're going to need 55% of posters to agree to end the old thread.

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

Alright, alright - I was merely using hyperbole to demonstrate how a 5% paycut was little more than fluffy PR.

Edit: http://noto55.com/

So, apparently there are plans in the works that for a No Confidence vote to go through it would need 55% in the Commons. Huh. Interesting.

Apparently it was the Lib Dems who pressed for fixed term elections and a new method of dissolution to stop the Tories from calling a snap election when the polls look good. It also has something to do with the Civil Service's advice not to get the Queen involved in the timing of parliamentary dissolution, i.e. overruling the fixed term date.

Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me when other parliaments with fixed terms often require a larger percentage to dissolve parliament - like Scotland for instance requires two-thirds of its parliament to force a new election.

Checks Facebook.

No I don't want to join FLASHMOB OF FOX HUNTING NOW! group

Checks Facebook.

No I don't want to join ANGRY DEMO FOR DEMOCRACY! group

Checks Facebook.

No I don't want to join I bet I can find a million people who DON'T want David Cameron as our PM.

Unticks a load of 'friends'. Bet their all claiming benefits anyway. :lol

As an American I don't really understand why the Liberal Dems made a coalition with the Tories, don't their views fall much more in line with Labor? It sounded like Gordon Brown was terribly unpopular, so I would have thought him stepping down a couple of days ago would've sealed the deal for a Liberal Dem/Labor coalition.

Originally Posted by DEO3

As an American I don't really understand why the Liberal Dems made a coalition with the Tories, don't their views fall much more in line with Labor?

I believe it was a combination of pragmatism and Labour negotiators merely 'going through the motions.'

Edit: Though the OP has a good answer to this.

i think i've found the best reason for an elected house of lords yet; we can stop alan sugar asking people to call him 'lord sugar'.

Mathew Paris made a good point on DP earlier about the 55% thing. If someone really wants to force down the government they can surely put in a motion to repeal the 55% no confidence law. Thus only needing 50.01% to repeal it then use a 50.1% no confidence vote.

Originally Posted by JonnyBrad

Mathew Paris made a good point on DP earlier about the 55% thing. If someone really wants to force down the government they can surely put in a motion to repeal the 55% no confidence law. Thus only needing 50.01% to repeal it then use a 50.1% no confidence vote.

Dead right IMO - is Matthew Paris lurking on GAF?

Originally Posted by phisheep, this thread 5:04

And it doesn't seem to me (legal hat on) that it is something you could legislate for either, because all Parliamentary votes are carried by a bare majority. So if a confidence vote doesn't reach 55% to take out the PM, all they have to do is have a bare majority vote to change the rule back to what is was before and then do the confidence vote again.

If that's the case, wouldn't pushing the law through in the first place be an excercise in futility?

Originally Posted by Mr. Sam

If that's the case, wouldn't pushing the law through in the first place be an excercise in futility?

That's why I'm curious about how they propose to do it. Unless there are some seriously clever mechanics in there it is hard to see how it could fly.

I imagine they'll do something odd like making it subject to some parliamentary committee or other, so that by the time anyone has made their mind up everyone has forgotten what the fuss was about. Parliamentary custom is a thing in itself, and mostly distinct from usual day-to-day law.

Parliament isn't necessarily all that good at stopping things, but it is a master of delay.

Originally Posted by PJV3

The MP was funny in an Alan Clark way " unlike them we are capable of holding our noses to work together" Liberals stink.

Come on. Clark was better than that.

Originally Posted by Facism

I preferred ConDem. Fits like a glove.

The title of this thread should have totally been "ConDemned to Cameruin".

to celebrate the thread and new politics -

[IMG]http://i42.************/29vylus.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i41.************/333coqd.jpg[/IMG][IMG]http://i44.************/rldzko.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i44.************/2h5ohmr.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i41.************/2n8r8li.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i42.************/wgypti.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i41.************/n70dh3.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i39.************/33mld6o.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i41.************/2hd5j5y.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i41.************/m9ce2u.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i44.************/rr58g4.png[/IMG][IMG]http://i42.************/9gh5cm.jpg[/IMG]

Where exactly does this avatar meme come from btw?