02-05-2013, 06:58 PM | #101 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
In some senses I suppose. An actual separate political party though. Also not particularly religious. While I would not vote for them (because I think leaving the EU would be a disaster), they do have redeeming features (which is not something I can really say about the tea party). The big difference is that while UKIP are against the things they say they are, the Tea Party are actually a religious fundamentalist group (pretty much like the governments in some of the worst Middle Eastern countries but with Christianity rather than Islam) masquerading as a small government party.
Honestly I am partially glad they're starting to poll non-trivial numbers - if they pick up some seats then they might start to draw that element out of the Conservative party, which would make the Conservatives a much more appealing party to people like me.
__________________
Quote:
Last edited by Concept; 02-05-2013 at 07:46 PM. |
|
02-06-2013, 08:16 AM | #102 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Quote:
UKIP's polling figures are fairly interesting, actually, I'd be interested to see when they get their first MP. On gay marriage, I was sitting in the chamber for a while as they were debating it. Most interesting. I was in one of the Westminster bars as the results came in; whole place went silent, then applauded. I was then in another of the bars later on, and there a fairly large amount of openly gay MPs and aides having a celebration. Lovely day. I mean, this reading was in no danger of failing. It's the second reading and there's plenty of stages to go through yet. i would argue that this vote means little. However, it's fairly likely to pass eventually, so I'm fairly happy. |
|
02-06-2013, 07:33 PM | #103 |
Fog Badge
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,513
|
Sorry to interrupt, not sure where else to share this - thought perhaps this thread might do since it's primarily "non-US" politics (even though I know the main subject is that of the UK)...
Anyway, a candidate running for the Presidency of Iran is doing an AMA on reddit, and it is one of the most interesting AMAs I've seen. It's a very good read - you can check it out here. |
03-13-2013, 11:27 AM | #104 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
EU budget: MEPs have surprised absolutely no-one and rejected it.
Good? Bad? Should the EU budget be increased, decreased, frozen (all in real terms)? |
04-01-2013, 09:23 AM | #105 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Quote:
I mean it sort of is, via the back door, but it isn't really being privatised much more than it already is privatised in part. This isn't my area of expertise, though. But yes, people are freaking out. I work in an MP's office and we get so much on this. |
|
04-01-2013, 11:19 AM | #106 |
Soul Badge
|
First of all, I must say that I find this thread extremely enlightening and it has cleared many major doubts I had about certain aspects of Britain's political system. This may well aid me in implementing several aspects that could improve Panama's system should I seek to actively participate in my nation's politics.
Now then, as far as my current inquiries go, I'd like to know the actual role of the Commonwealth and it's member states; how far does it go as an actual alliance of states? Secondly, how much power or influence does the British government hold over territories such as Canada and Australia? Or is it negligible to this day and both are now self-governing entities? |
04-01-2013, 11:33 AM | #107 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
Canada, Australia et al are entirely independent states and have been for a long time. The British government has no more power over them as former parts of the British Empire than it does over the US. Nor do we have any special place/power in the Commonwealth, although it is mostly (but not exclusively) made up of countries that were at one point part of the British Empire.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
04-01-2013, 12:06 PM | #108 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
I would add that we have perhaps some soft influence over weaker members, but not a great deal.
Glad the thread is of use! |
04-01-2013, 04:02 PM | #109 | |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
04-01-2013, 04:10 PM | #110 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Haha. I must have missed that one. But no, if that were really happening there would be a general strike. Which would be fun.
Said no-one ever. |
04-01-2013, 04:10 PM | #111 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Papers in hyperbole shocker.
Also Kush are you going to have to go campaign in South Shields or is that too Labour-tastic to bother? |
04-01-2013, 04:13 PM | #112 | |
Noted homosexual
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Praising the sun
Posts: 1,091
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
04-01-2013, 04:16 PM | #113 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
You already said that.
|
04-01-2013, 04:18 PM | #114 | |
beebooboobopbooboobop
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
04-01-2013, 04:24 PM | #115 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Hey! Who turned out the lights?
Hey! Who turned out the lights? Hey! Who turned out the lights? |
04-01-2013, 04:30 PM | #116 | |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Quote:
I don't know the area that well but I'm pretty sure that Labour has a majority past 10k and has a huge number of the wards sealed up. It sure as hell isn't anywhere Labour will lose, put it like that, and I would hav thoughtthat Miliband had a very good local team behind him. I think that UKIP will throw a lot at it, though. Sufficed to say that my poncy southern accent will not win the Lib Dems any votes. |
|
04-01-2013, 04:40 PM | #117 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
In fairness, your voice is far more tolerable than that of Ed Milliband.
|
04-01-2013, 04:42 PM | #118 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Well yes but I didn't have to have surgery on my voice over the summer. Fortunately, I don't want to be a politician.
I actually have a fair amount of time for Ed, as far as Labour politicos go. David too, though he's a fairly massive hypocrite. |
04-03-2013, 03:25 AM | #119 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
|
04-03-2013, 04:15 AM | #120 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Snap!
|
04-03-2013, 08:33 AM | #122 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yes. I posted this on a politics based forum (filled with students) and we mostly came out as that.
|
04-03-2013, 08:40 AM | #123 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Same.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
04-08-2013, 07:29 AM | #124 | |
Archbishop of Banterbury
|
__________________
Quote:
|
|
04-08-2013, 08:00 PM | #125 |
Soul Badge
|
How come the article alternates calling her "Barroness" and "Lady" and never calls her "Margaret?"
__________________
Level 4: 38-14-7, 76 KO's, 212 TP, 0 SP, B- ref |
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|