Dubstepforum.com

Seriously, what's the point in it?

They don't have an open debate, just throw cheap insults to score points so the toffs on the back benchs can yell and laugh over excitedly for their side like a bunch of 12 year olds.

.onelove. wrote:Seriously, what's the point in it?

They don't have an open debate, just throw cheap insults to score points so the toffs on the back benchs can yell and laugh over excitedly for their side like a bunch of 12 year olds.

its not the real place where decisions are made through referendums etc

they dont even run the show

£2 a pint in there

Sounds like you need a more... urban spokesperson

real decisions arent made there? well they are, there is hardy ever referendums.

Pistonsbeneath wrote:

.onelove. wrote:Seriously, what's the point in it?

They don't have an open debate, just throw cheap insults to score points so the toffs on the back benchs can yell and laugh over excitedly for their side like a bunch of 12 year olds.

its not the real place where decisions are made through referendums etc

they dont even run the show

what do you mean? it is exactly where the decisions are made. For example tuition fees raise, they have a debate and they all vote on it. Same with the war in Iraq, same with the budget.

and when was the last time we had a referendum?

Anyone who hasn't watched "The thick of it" ought to do so asap.

stormtrace wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:

.onelove. wrote:Seriously, what's the point in it?

They don't have an open debate, just throw cheap insults to score points so the toffs on the back benchs can yell and laugh over excitedly for their side like a bunch of 12 year olds.

its not the real place where decisions are made through referendums etc

they dont even run the show

what do you mean? it is exactly where the decisions are made. For example tuition fees raise, they have a debate and they all vote on it. Same with the war in Iraq, same with the budget.

and when was the last time we had a referendum?

exactly my point

cumbriandubsteper wrote:

stormtrace wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:

.onelove. wrote:Seriously, what's the point in it?

They don't have an open debate, just throw cheap insults to score points so the toffs on the back benchs can yell and laugh over excitedly for their side like a bunch of 12 year olds.

its not the real place where decisions are made through referendums etc

they dont even run the show

what do you mean? it is exactly where the decisions are made. For example tuition fees raise, they have a debate and they all vote on it. Same with the war in Iraq, same with the budget.

and when was the last time we had a referendum?

exactly my point

I think there should be a lot more referendums, that's proper democracy. Meritocracy is pretty much the system at the moment which is alright to an extent but it doesn't stop c-unts getting in, I mean they might be clever but they're still c-unts!

test recordings wrote:

cumbriandubsteper wrote:

stormtrace wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:

.onelove. wrote:Seriously, what's the point in it?

They don't have an open debate, just throw cheap insults to score points so the toffs on the back benchs can yell and laugh over excitedly for their side like a bunch of 12 year olds.

its not the real place where decisions are made through referendums etc

they dont even run the show

what do you mean? it is exactly where the decisions are made. For example tuition fees raise, they have a debate and they all vote on it. Same with the war in Iraq, same with the budget.

and when was the last time we had a referendum?

exactly my point

I think there should be a lot more referendums, that's proper democracy. Meritocracy is pretty much the system at the moment which is alright to an extent but it doesn't stop c-unts getting in, I mean they might be clever but they're still c-unts!

Decisions are normally made from the cabinet in the UK, although Blair was increasingly presidential in his decision-taking methods. Under the coalition, I suspect that the cabinet is where all decisions are made before they're debated.

Last national referendum was 1975 in EEC membership, and there have been local ones, such as the one on devolution in the North a couple of years ago. Whilst they appear to improve democracy, very they are merely used as a second order election, people voting against to spite the government. I did my dissertation on European referenda last year, and found that in most cases, votes against, particularly in the case of France 2005, were against the government. Switzerland and California have them all of the time, but the turnouts are actually relatively small and made up of the upper-middle class and upper class, so whilst they may appear to be more democratic, they don't serve that purpose very well.

/essay

.onelove. wrote:Seriously, what's the point in it?

They don't have an open debate, just throw cheap insults to score points so the toffs on the back benchs can yell and laugh over excitedly for their side like a bunch of 12 year olds.

wow you must be from wiki-leaks or something.

**rollseyes""

Your government is much more entertaining to watch than ours

Please can nobody refer to the system we have as a 'meritocracy' - what a load of old bollocks.

the acid never lies wrote:Please can nobody refer to the system we have as a 'meritocracy' - what a load of old bollocks.

It functions more like that than a democracy! That's how Mr T. Blair was running it pretty much...

Fine, maybe I'm deconstructing the term a little too much; to me it implies that people yield as much power and control in their lives as they 'deserve' which I think is categorically untrue.

the acid never lies wrote:Fine, maybe I'm deconstructing the term a little too much; to me it implies that people yield as much power and control in their lives as they 'deserve' which I think is categorically untrue.

In a meritocracy that power is bequeathed to them on their 'merits', i.e. skills and knowledge, that would be used in their role handling such power.

Put it this way, when do politicians ask what to do? They just go out and do it! They act on a presumption that their role gives them the permission to do so and therefore act as they would in a meritocratic system.

Note: not all do. The Lib/Dem MP for Leeds North West Greg Mulholland holds a lot of surgeries and meetings with members of his constuency and reports back on his progress, his seat's been safe for a long time because of it, unlike a lot of the 'competing' Conservatives that don't do anything like that (and live far away) so they don't really get how the local scene works.

Because as we all know the UK Government is just a puppet for the NWO run by reptilians who land in their big space ships and make crop circles and use their alien guns to brain wash the masses and change the gulf sream and rig elections and keep the MAN in power. HUH


Politics on dsf iz dedout

test recordings wrote:

the acid never lies wrote:Fine, maybe I'm deconstructing the term a little too much; to me it implies that people yield as much power and control in their lives as they 'deserve' which I think is categorically untrue.

In a meritocracy that power is bequeathed to them on their 'merits', i.e. skills and knowledge, that would be used in their role handling such power.

Put it this way, when do politicians ask what to do? They just go out and do it! They act on a presumption that their role gives them the permission to do so and therefore act as they would in a meritocratic system.

Note: not all do. The Lib/Dem MP for Leeds North West Greg Mulholland holds a lot of surgeries and meetings with members of his constuency and reports back on his progress, his seat's been safe for a long time because of it, unlike a lot of the 'competing' Conservatives that don't do anything like that (and live far away) so they don't really get how the local scene works.

Oh I see, yes alright. But that isn't what a politician means when he/she talks about meritocracy - whether or not they secretly harbour that view is a different matter. Now I think of it there is a rather good book by Richard Seymour which deals with, among other things, the ideology of meritocracy called "The Meaning of David Cameron". Its a short & very good read and would recommend it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Meaning-David-C ... 110&sr=1-1