Given that for the longest period Liberal and then LD MPs had zero prospects of attaining any political power and prestige, I would have guessed it was more likely they were full of members who cared more about policies than power to a larger degree than the others, or else they would have tried joining a party with an easier route to power. Now they've tasted power perhaps less so, but I'm wary of criticising them for simply wanting power and not having much of an idea of what to do with it, or at least I find it impossible to condemn such standard behaviour as though it were a LD trait, especially as the current PM and the LOTO are both accused of just being professional politicos who want power with little idea of what to do with it, just that they'll figure something out.
"For the Lib Dems sake, on May the 8th next year, I hope no one says about them C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la politique."
I doubt they will TSE, unless they have your knowledge of French - and even then they need to be 100% correct in every aspect of their clever cloggs translation, unlike a certain poster I could mention on here a few weeks back. Btw, I must say that judging by the picture at the top of this thread, OGH has exceedingly clean windows in his lounge!
I'm surprised, I thought Soft Porn Masquerading As Drama was a market HBO had largely cornered. I watch/discuss so much US TV that it can get a bit blurry.
The worst thing about the Fall new seasons is not knowing which ones from the new arrivals crop will make the axe. Almost Human from Fox was brilliant - but got canned at S1.
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
Given that for the longest period Liberal and then LD MPs had zero prospects of attaining any political power and prestige, I would have guessed it was more likely they were full of members who cared more about policies than power to a larger degree than the others, or else they would have tried joining a party with an easier route to power. Now they've tasted power perhaps less so, but I'm wary of criticising them for simply wanting power and not having much of an idea of what to do with it, or at least I find it impossible to condemn such standard behaviour as though it were a LD trait, especially as the current PM and the LOTO are both accused of just being professional politicos who want power with little idea of what to do with it, just that they'll figure something out.
That is true, but the LD MP's wanted to become ministers above the good of their party. There were warnings in 2010 that this would happen if they went into a coalition.
In a rare lucid moment, Joe Biden has admitted that the US' policy on Syria has been a complete farce:
'“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria,” he said, explaining that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad,” that in a sense they started a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” by pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” towards anyone who would fight against Assad.
“And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria.'
Basically, with the key difference that Biden absolves the US of all blame, this is exactly what those of us with sense have been saying the entire time -against the furious denials of many in this very thread.
I thought the 100 was surprisingly awesome and nowhere near as bland or cliche ridden as I thought it would be. Similar thing with Arrow. Sleepy Hollow seems like it would have a problem with longevity, but it started with a promising first season. Haven I used to love, but I couldn't stand Colin Ferguson in the last season. Grimm is a weird show that seems to have split into 2 barely connected shows and which has forgotten what it's instigating plot was. Once Upon a Time is incorporating elements from Frozen of all things, and it so confusing and nonsensical I'm sure that fits somehow. Though one of the best shows out there is that canadian show, Continnuum. Pure awesome. Last season of Justified too I think, even if that show's lost much of its quality.
The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.
But 'the electorate' doesn't decide anything - our system delivers a result that can, and will, be interpreted in a number of ways.
The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...
True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.
We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.
We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.
Given that for the longest period Liberal and then LD MPs had zero prospects of attaining any political power and prestige, I would have guessed it was more likely they were full of members who cared more about policies than power to a larger degree than the others, or else they would have tried joining a party with an easier route to power. Now they've tasted power perhaps less so, but I'm wary of criticising them for simply wanting power and not having much of an idea of what to do with it, or at least I find it impossible to condemn such standard behaviour as though it were a LD trait, especially as the current PM and the LOTO are both accused of just being professional politicos who want power with little idea of what to do with it, just that they'll figure something out.
That is true, but the LD MP's wanted to become ministers above the good of their party. There were warnings in 2010 that this would happen if they went into a coalition.
With 57 MPS they got 5 cabinet posts. How many would they get in 2015? It may be that due to having a fewer number of seats it might not be worth it.
I find Showtime irritating. They crowbar sex into everything in most dull ways. I stopped watching Broadwalk Empire because of it. At least HBO tries to keep it a bit more in context. They seem to rather like torture porn too, but that may be just me noticing/the type of shows I like.
If you're going to have a show about something, don't add sex-filler that eats large chunks of time for no reason other than titillation. At least True Blood did it in an entertaining way - it became a standing joke, pardon the pun...
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
Education in good sex!
Pedant alert.
Masters of Sex is Sony Pictures TV.
I thought that was Showtime.
Apparently there's some medieval set musical comedy show airing this Fall. Sounds atrocious.
We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.
If their numbers are needed to create a stable majority, then they certainly would. They just wouldn't be able to ask for much. If UKIP get double the votes but a quarter of the MPs of the LDs, would they for instance have more or less a mandate to seek a government contribution? Who knows, but if they could tip the balance, they have as much right to ask for whatever they can manage I reckon.
In a rare lucid moment, Joe Biden has admitted that the US' policy on Syria has been a complete farce:
'“Our allies in the region were our largest problem in Syria,” he said, explaining that Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE were “so determined to take down Assad,” that in a sense they started a “proxy Sunni-Shia war” by pouring “hundreds of millions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” towards anyone who would fight against Assad.
“And we could not convince our colleagues to stop supplying them,” said Biden, thus disassociating the US from unleashing the civil war in Syria.'
Basically, with the key difference that Biden absolves the US of all blame, this is exactly what those of us with sense have been saying the entire time -against the furious denials of many in this very thread.
A ten part mystery series called Gracepoint started on Fox last night, starring former Dr. Who David Tennant with a not very convincing American accent.
Miss Plato, I won't go into specifics (for fear of spoilers) but in season 3 of Game of Thrones they overdid the torture. More repetition than anything else, which both diminishes the impact and makes it a little boring [still loved the programme overall, mind].
Given that for the longest period Liberal and then LD MPs had zero prospects of attaining any political power and prestige, I would have guessed it was more likely they were full of members who cared more about policies than power to a larger degree than the others, or else they would have tried joining a party with an easier route to power. Now they've tasted power perhaps less so, but I'm wary of criticising them for simply wanting power and not having much of an idea of what to do with it, or at least I find it impossible to condemn such standard behaviour as though it were a LD trait, especially as the current PM and the LOTO are both accused of just being professional politicos who want power with little idea of what to do with it, just that they'll figure something out.
That is true, but the LD MP's wanted to become ministers above the good of their party. There were warnings in 2010 that this would happen if they went into a coalition.
With 57 MPS they got 5 cabinet posts. How many would they get in 2015? It may be that due to having a fewer number of seats it might not be worth it.
Many more LD MP's are in government not just in the cabinet, I think the total number is 25, just enough for a governing majority.
One of my work colleagues lives in Frinton, so I picked his brains about the by-election. He told me that David Cameron had visited yesterday on the campaign trail, which was news to me and most surprising, given the apparently inevitable result, but it's true:
I'm not sure the Lib Dems are that unsure what to do with power. I think the central problem is a disconnect between the leadership and many of the members who feel the party has been taken over by a group of professional politicians who don't really share their values.
I'm not sure the Lib Dems are that unsure what to do with power. I think the central problem is a disconnect between the leadership and many of the members who feel the party has been taken over by a group of professional politicians who don't really share their values.
Well the only thing we are sure is their government salary and vanity.
One of my work colleagues lives in Frinton, so I picked his brains about the by-election. He told me that David Cameron had visited yesterday on the campaign trail, which was news to me and most surprising, given the apparently inevitable result, but it's true:
I loved Grimm, but it's gone off the boil. I did like the stunt with the baby/plane.
Colin Ferguson isn't my cup of tea. He was great in Eureka!, but hmm in Haven, and now he's turned up as himself again in The Vampire Diaries as some sort of vigilante type to challenge Sheriff Forbes authority... Speaking of TVD, I don't really rate The Originals much. It was bad enough when this spin off took over most of S3/4 of TVD - the characters are too Scooby Dooish.
OUAT lost me about 18 shows in. After the Peter Pan thingy [a great bit of acting], I just stopped caring. And Snow and Charming are so DULL. I only want to watch Rumplestiltskin and Captain Hook.
I couldn't get into Continuum - I keep being told it's great. I'll have to try again during the Christmas Hellatus.
LOVE Justified. Arrow is filler for me - Stephen Amell is glorious as Oliver Queen, but I want him and Felicity to just get together. It reminds me a lot of Smallville. I can't stand Laurel. The actress that plays her Nicki Aycocks is much better as Ruby v1.0 in Supernatural.
I thought the 100 was surprisingly awesome and nowhere near as bland or cliche ridden as I thought it would be. Similar thing with Arrow. Sleepy Hollow seems like it would have a problem with longevity, but it started with a promising first season. Haven I used to love, but I couldn't stand Colin Ferguson in the last season. Grimm is a weird show that seems to have split into 2 barely connected shows and which has forgotten what it's instigating plot was. Once Upon a Time is incorporating elements from Frozen of all things, and it so confusing and nonsensical I'm sure that fits somehow. Though one of the best shows out there is that canadian show, Continnuum. Pure awesome. Last season of Justified too I think, even if that show's lost much of its quality.
The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.
But 'the electorate' doesn't decide anything - our system delivers a result that can, and will, be interpreted in a number of ways.
The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...
True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.
One of my work colleagues lives in Frinton, so I picked his brains about the by-election. He told me that David Cameron had visited yesterday on the campaign trail, which was news to me and most surprising, given the apparently inevitable result, but it's true:
One of my work colleagues lives in Frinton, so I picked his brains about the by-election. He told me that David Cameron had visited yesterday on the campaign trail, which was news to me and most surprising, given the apparently inevitable result, but it's true:
I loved Grimm, but it's gone off the boil. I did like the stunt with the baby/plane.
Colin Ferguson isn't my cup of tea. He was great in Eureka!, but hmm in Haven, and now he's turned up as himself again in The Vampire Diaries as some sort of vigilante type to challenge Sheriff Forbes authority... Speaking of TVD, I don't really rate The Originals much. It was bad enough when this spin off took over most of S3/4 of TVD - the characters are too Scooby Dooish.
OUAT lost me about 18 shows in. After the Peter Pan thingy [a great bit of acting], I just stopped caring. And Snow and Charming are so DULL. I only want to watch Rumplestiltskin and Captain Hook.
I couldn't get into Continuum - I keep being told it's great. I'll have to try again during the Christmas Hellatus.
LOVE Justified. Arrow is filler for me - Stephen Amell is glorious, but I want him and Felicity to just get together. It reminds me a lot of Smallville. I can't stand Laurel. The actress that plays her Nicki Aycocks is much better as Ruby v1.0 in Supernatural.
I thought the 100 was surprisingly awesome and nowhere near as bland or cliche ridden as I thought it would be. Similar thing with Arrow. Sleepy Hollow seems like it would have a problem with longevity, but it started with a promising first season. Haven I used to love, but I couldn't stand Colin Ferguson in the last season. Grimm is a weird show that seems to have split into 2 barely connected shows and which has forgotten what it's instigating plot was. Once Upon a Time is incorporating elements from Frozen of all things, and it so confusing and nonsensical I'm sure that fits somehow. Though one of the best shows out there is that canadian show, Continnuum. Pure awesome. Last season of Justified too I think, even if that show's lost much of its quality.
The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.
But 'the electorate' doesn't decide anything - our system delivers a result that can, and will, be interpreted in a number of ways.
The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...
True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.
A ten part mystery series called Gracepoint started on Fox last night, starring former Dr. Who David Tennant with a not very convincing American accent.
Miss Plato, I won't go into specifics (for fear of spoilers) but in season 3 of Game of Thrones they overdid the torture. More repetition than anything else, which both diminishes the impact and makes it a little boring [still loved the programme overall, mind].
Yay - my opinion counted for something somewhere. More than happens with my vote at GE time, that (edit: counted in the sense of had an impact, I'm not alleging electoral irregularities here!).
With the normal TV system of outlawing ugly people (particularly women), I thought Falling Skies, another post apocalyptic show, seemed to respond to such criticism in its second season in a slight way which was interesting. Obviously everyone was still good looking, but they were definitely grimier in the second season, with people with dyed hair having their darker roots showing through in a way that looked like they had just run out of dye or something. Nothing enough to detract from the Models of the apocalypse of course, but it felt like an effort had been made.
Agree on GoT S3 - I think it was a problem where certain actors were good and or popular and were kept on screen and plots stretched out where there wasn't enough to prevent it getting repetitive. And hell, they even cut down on the Sexposition in the latest season.
@Plato What struck me about S2 was that they added Felicity to the main cast list, and Laurel seemed to have almost nothing to do - I think they know which character is more interesting and better portrayed.
I think the central problem is a disconnect between the leadership and many of the members who feel the party has been taken over by a group of professional politicians who don't really share their values.
I can see that, to some extent. A common refrain across many parties, but the leadership does seem to have been harder, more willing to compromise and adapt, than perhaps the membership thought was appropriate. I never hear a good word about the leadership from the local LDs in my area, and these are the ones still sticking with the party
That is good. I liked the 'tory ukip pact' piece too.
The WW2 thoughts in the piece intrigued me quite a bit and made some sense. Also, Their hypocrisy drives me mad. Our hypocrisy doesn’t' is a good line and often true, even if it applies to pundits just as much most of the time.
Miss Plato, I won't go into specifics (for fear of spoilers) but in season 3 of Game of Thrones they overdid the torture. More repetition than anything else, which both diminishes the impact and makes it a little boring [still loved the programme overall, mind].
Given that for the longest period Liberal and then LD MPs had zero prospects of attaining any political power and prestige, I would have guessed it was more likely they were full of members who cared more about policies than power to a larger degree than the others, or else they would have tried joining a party with an easier route to power. Now they've tasted power perhaps less so, but I'm wary of criticising them for simply wanting power and not having much of an idea of what to do with it, or at least I find it impossible to condemn such standard behaviour as though it were a LD trait, especially as the current PM and the LOTO are both accused of just being professional politicos who want power with little idea of what to do with it, just that they'll figure something out.
That is true, but the LD MP's wanted to become ministers above the good of their party. There were warnings in 2010 that this would happen if they went into a coalition.
With 57 MPS they got 5 cabinet posts. How many would they get in 2015? It may be that due to having a fewer number of seats it might not be worth it.
Many more LD MP's are in government not just in the cabinet, I think the total number is 25, just enough for a governing majority.
I appreciate that but even so there comes a point where they are only getting 1 or 2 Cabinet post a couple of Minister of States and a few PPS jobs. It wouldn't be worth it.
As we're discussing TV, I don't plan on watching this myself, but Gotham comes to the screen this month. It's a TV series of the eponymous city, when Batman's a boy [because every reboot needs to remind us of his origin], focusing on Commissioner Gordon when he's still a detective rather than a bigwig.
Supermodels of SHIELD, season 2, also comes to UK screens this month. For some reason (and unlike last time) it's a month behind the US screening. Lucy Lawless will be joining the cast (I think as a recurring guest, rather than regular).
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
Are you talking about how it would look, or your own opinion of it?
In terms of the priorities, same as they've always been. Same as every party. To try and push our vision of Britain (which we naturally think is the best one). So we work with other parties where necessary to try to achieve that.
Whether it's trying to pull Labour or the Tories closer to our principles doesn't make much difference, we do what we can.
Just going back to the PR point as well. The other thing that would seriously put off Labour and Libdems from indulging in changing the voting system is that UKIP have won a national PR election now.
I think even the slightest hint of the vision Nige as PM entering Downing Street would terrify them!
I loved Grimm, but it's gone off the boil. I did like the stunt with the baby/plane.
Colin Ferguson isn't my cup of tea. He was great in Eureka!, but hmm in Haven, and now he's turned up as himself again in The Vampire Diaries as some sort of vigilante type to challenge Sheriff Forbes authority... Speaking of TVD, I don't really rate The Originals much. It was bad enough when this spin off took over most of S3/4 of TVD - the characters are too Scooby Dooish.
OUAT lost me about 18 shows in. After the Peter Pan thingy [a great bit of acting], I just stopped caring. And Snow and Charming are so DULL. I only want to watch Rumplestiltskin and Captain Hook.
I couldn't get into Continuum - I keep being told it's great. I'll have to try again during the Christmas Hellatus.
LOVE Justified. Arrow is filler for me - Stephen Amell is glorious, but I want him and Felicity to just get together. It reminds me a lot of Smallville. I can't stand Laurel. The actress that plays her Nicki Aycocks is much better as Ruby v1.0 in Supernatural.
I thought the 100 was surprisingly awesome and nowhere near as bland or cliche ridden as I thought it would be. Similar thing with Arrow. Sleepy Hollow seems like it would have a problem with longevity, but it started with a promising first season. Haven I used to love, but I couldn't stand Colin Ferguson in the last season. Grimm is a weird show that seems to have split into 2 barely connected shows and which has forgotten what it's instigating plot was. Once Upon a Time is incorporating elements from Frozen of all things, and it so confusing and nonsensical I'm sure that fits somehow. Though one of the best shows out there is that canadian show, Continnuum. Pure awesome. Last season of Justified too I think, even if that show's lost much of its quality.
The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.
But 'the electorate' doesn't decide anything - our system delivers a result that can, and will, be interpreted in a number of ways.
The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...
True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.
We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.
We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.
We'd have a mandate based on however many MPs we had. Whether you're going up or down the final number is the final number.
You have some odd ideas about the motivations and basis for coalitions.
I loved Grimm, but it's gone off the boil. I did like the stunt with the baby/plane.
Colin Ferguson isn't my cup of tea. He was great in Eureka!, but hmm in Haven, and now he's turned up as himself again in The Vampire Diaries as some sort of vigilante type to challenge Sheriff Forbes authority... Speaking of TVD, I don't really rate The Originals much. It was bad enough when this spin off took over most of S3/4 of TVD - the characters are too Scooby Dooish.
OUAT lost me about 18 shows in. After the Peter Pan thingy [a great bit of acting], I just stopped caring. And Snow and Charming are so DULL. I only want to watch Rumplestiltskin and Captain Hook.
I couldn't get into Continuum - I keep being told it's great. I'll have to try again during the Christmas Hellatus.
LOVE Justified. Arrow is filler for me - Stephen Amell is glorious, but I want him and Felicity to just get together. It reminds me a lot of Smallville. I can't stand Laurel. The actress that plays her Nicki Aycocks is much better as Ruby v1.0 in Supernatural.
The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.
But 'the electorate' doesn't decide anything - our system delivers a result that can, and will, be interpreted in a number of ways.
The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...
True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.
Just going back to the PR point as well. The other thing that would seriously put off Labour and Libdems from indulging in changing the voting system is that UKIP have won a national PR election now.
I think even the slightest hint of the vision Nige as PM entering Downing Street would terrify them!
Certainly a good test of commitment to the principle of PR.
I forgot to mention Agents of SHEILD - that's just getting into its stride IMO - glad it got renewed. ABC have spent a fortune on the production values/SFX.
And of course Person of Interest is back on again now too for S4.
With the normal TV system of outlawing ugly people (particularly women), I thought Falling Skies, another post apocalyptic show, seemed to respond to such criticism in its second season in a slight way which was interesting. Obviously everyone was still good looking, but they were definitely grimier in the second season, with people with dyed hair having their darker roots showing through in a way that looked like they had just run out of dye or something. Nothing enough to detract from the Models of the apocalypse of course, but it felt like an effort had been made.
Agree on GoT S3 - I think it was a problem where certain actors were good and or popular and were kept on screen and plots stretched out where there wasn't enough to prevent it getting repetitive. And hell, they even cut down on the Sexposition in the latest season.
@Plato What struck me about S2 was that they added Felicity to the main cast list, and Laurel seemed to have almost nothing to do - I think they know which character is more interesting and better portrayed.
I think the central problem is a disconnect between the leadership and many of the members who feel the party has been taken over by a group of professional politicians who don't really share their values.
I can see that, to some extent. A common refrain across many parties, but the leadership does seem to have been harder, more willing to compromise and adapt, than perhaps the membership thought was appropriate. I never hear a good word about the leadership from the local LDs in my area, and these are the ones still sticking with the party
That is good. I liked the 'tory ukip pact' piece too.
The WW2 thoughts in the piece intrigued me quite a bit and made some sense. Also, Their hypocrisy drives me mad. Our hypocrisy doesn’t' is a good line and often true, even if it applies to pundits just as much most of the time.
You can tell I don't travel by public transport too often. On the way back from London this evening, I found an empty seat in the otherwise-packed carriage. So I made my first mistake. I quickly sat down, only to discover the reason the seat was empty: the moquette was soaked in a pool of liquid that immediately soaked my bottom to the skin.
Then I made my second mistake: I instinctively put my hand on my trousers, only to coat my fingers in the foul-smelling liquid as well.
I found a seat in another carriage, and spent the next forty-five minutes wreathed in a rather dubious odour. Or at least, a more dubious odour than my usual one...
I loved Grimm, but it's gone off the boil. I did like the stunt with the baby/plane.
Colin Ferguson isn't my cup of tea. He was great in Eureka!, but hmm in Haven, and now he's turned up as himself again in The Vampire Diaries as some sort of vigilante type to challenge Sheriff Forbes authority... Speaking of TVD, I don't really rate The Originals much. It was bad enough when this spin off took over most of S3/4 of TVD - the characters are too Scooby Dooish.
OUAT lost me about 18 shows in. After the Peter Pan thingy [a great bit of acting], I just stopped caring. And Snow and Charming are so DULL. I only want to watch Rumplestiltskin and Captain Hook.
I couldn't get into Continuum - I keep being told it's great. I'll have to try again during the Christmas Hellatus.
LOVE Justified. Arrow is filler for me - Stephen Amell is glorious, but I want him and Felicity to just get together. It reminds me a lot of Smallville. I can't stand Laurel. The actress that plays her Nicki Aycocks is much better as Ruby v1.0 in Supernatural.
I thought the 100 was surprisingly awesome and nowhere near as bland or cliche ridden as I thought it would be. Similar thing with Arrow. Sleepy Hollow seems like it would have a problem with longevity, but it started with a promising first season. Haven I used to love, but I couldn't stand Colin Ferguson in the last season. Grimm is a weird show that seems to have split into 2 barely connected shows and which has forgotten what it's instigating plot was. Once Upon a Time is incorporating elements from Frozen of all things, and it so confusing and nonsensical I'm sure that fits somehow. Though one of the best shows out there is that canadian show, Continnuum. Pure awesome. Last season of Justified too I think, even if that show's lost much of its quality.
The Lib Dems will follow whatever the electorate have decided.
But 'the electorate' doesn't decide anything - our system delivers a result that can, and will, be interpreted in a number of ways.
The most likely thing that the 'electorate' will say is that we don't want so many LD MPs...
True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
Are you talking about how it would look, or your own opinion of it?
In terms of the priorities, same as they've always been. Same as every party. To try and push our vision of Britain (which we naturally think is the best one). So we work with other parties where necessary to try to achieve that.
Whether it's trying to pull Labour or the Tories closer to our principles doesn't make much difference, we do what we can.
But that isn't what coalition has done. The Tories have not moved closer to LD principles in the slightest. It has been a case of horse-trading. It has worked at times and not worked at others.
Having spent 5 years saying 'We need to do this to clear up the mess Labour left' and then jumping ship to joining Labour - it would be a very strange journey to suddenly cosy up to Balls and Miliband, two of the key members of Brown's economic team that created the problem.
That would show how few principles the LDs actually have.
As we're discussing TV, I don't plan on watching this myself, but Gotham comes to the screen this month. It's a TV series of the eponymous city, when Batman's a boy [because every reboot needs to remind us of his origin], focusing on Commissioner Gordon when he's still a detective rather than a bigwig.
Supermodels of SHIELD, season 2, also comes to UK screens this month. For some reason (and unlike last time) it's a month behind the US screening. Lucy Lawless will be joining the cast (I think as a recurring guest, rather than regular).
The Lib Dems major problem is that they are essentially a mini-Labour. We've seen their ministers, MPs and supporters are more comfortable criticising the Tories that they are actually in government with rather than the complete and utter balls up Labour made which they are trying to clear up.
We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?
I forgot to mention Agents of SHEILD - that's just getting into its stride IMO - glad it got renewed. ABC have spent a fortune on the production values/SFX.
And of course Person of Interest is back on again now too for S4.
Falling Skies - Aliens destroyed most of the world, group of a few hundred struggling to survive and fight back. Other aliens get involved. Toward the grimmer end of the genre.
Person of Interest is a terrifying show, and also amazing in how it pretended to be a fairly standard procedural crime show that transformed into the type of plot it now has.
I cnything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
Are you talke can.
But that isn't what coalition has done. The Tories have not moved closer to LD principles in the slightest. It has been a case of horse-trading. It has worked at times and not worked at others.
Works for me. This one has been fairly disappointing, but I don't personally have an issue with it as a style. Better unfulfilling horse trading than unconstrained power in a large majority.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
he House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I
Are yoe can.
Having spent 5 years saying 'We need to do this to clear up the mess Labour left' and then jumping ship to joining Labour - it would be a very strange journey to suddenly cosy up to Balls and Miliband, two of the key members of Brown's economic team that created the problem.
That would show how few principles the LDs actually have.
Someone how Miliband avoids too much criticism despite being at the heart of the previous government as adviser then Minister. And it would indeed be strange. But they could say that the LDs have helped fix the worst of the Labour years, and with them in coalition with Labour they can ensure they don't ruin it. Self serving argument, and likely to enrage many (but may be more popular with the LD base), but it could work.
One show that really didn't find its feet was Revolution - great idea, very patchy execution. Lasted two seasons and needed to be put out of its misery.
I couldn't tell if it was trying to be Firefly, Supernatural, X-Files or what. Given the creator Eric Kripke was behind SPN and had a load of X-Files people working for him - it felt like they kept trying to revert back when they were lost story wise.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
Are you talking about how it would look, or your own opinion of it?
In terms of the priorities, same as they've always been. Same as every party. To try and push our vision of Britain (which we naturally think is the best one). So we work with other parties where necessary to try to achieve that.
Whether it's trying to pull Labour or the Tories closer to our principles doesn't make much difference, we do what we can.
But that isn't what coalition has done. The Tories have not moved closer to LD principles in the slightest. It has been a case of horse-trading. It has worked at times and not worked at others.
Having spent 5 years saying 'We need to do this to clear up the mess Labour left' and then jumping ship to joining Labour - it would be a very strange journey to suddenly cosy up to Balls and Miliband, two of the key members of Brown's economic team that created the problem.
That would show how few principles the LDs actually have.
Yes, horse trading. So the aggregate position the coalition has followed has been somewhere between the two parties centre of gravity on the political spectrum.
Nonsense. That would show that the Lib Dems are using what influence they have to get their policies (which they of course think are the best ones for the country, as every party does) followed as much as possible.
CopperSulphate Clegg is trying to position the LDs between the 2, hence they back the cut of the 50p rate to 45p against Labour opposition, as well as austerity while being pro EU, socially liberal and pro immigration to differentiate them from the Tories, unfortunately, they have ended up with the most unpopular parts of both parties agendas
It's on S1 E2 in the US. Most of the Fall shows started in the last two weeks.
EDIT Love original Adam West Batman. Did you like Smallville? Thought the casting in that was superb. Lex Luthor was marvellous, as was his dad. Tom Welling as Clarke was perfection. He was offered the role 3x before accepting it.
The Lib Dems major problem is that they are essentially a mini-Labour. We've seen their ministers, MPs and supporters are more comfortable criticising the Tories that they are actually in government with rather than the complete and utter balls up Labour made which they are trying to clear up.
We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?
Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.
Miss Plato, watched the first 3-4 seasons or suchlike properly and saw bits and pieces afterwards. I did see the end of the final episode, which must've been especially cool for serious fans who watched it all for a decade. Lionel Luthor was rather good.
Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.
I don't think the LDs claim they get 50/50 from the coalition. I think they argue they've managed more than their mere numbers would suggest should be expected (remember Clegg awhile back talking about how much they've done with only 5 cabinet members '6 if you include ken clarke'), and that they've managed to curtail the worst excesses of the Tories. People may or may not agree with that - funnily enough it's the Tory right who seem to complain about how much the LD have influence more than anyone else - but it's not an unreasonable claim to stake out.
The Lib Dems major problem is that they are essentially a mini-Labour. We've seen their ministers, MPs and supporters are more comfortable criticising the Tories that they are actually in government with rather than the complete and utter balls up Labour made which they are trying to clear up.
We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?
That is simply not true. For every Vince Cable there is a Danny Alexander or Norman Lamb who has been supportive of the government. At least as much criticism of the coalition has come from Tory frothers of the tory right.
Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.
*shrugs* We do the best we can, I think we'd acknowledge that it's not equal due to the disparity of MPs, although naturally any party tries to play up the influence it has. Given how much of the talk comes out is about moderating the Tories (which implies a junior partnership) I'm not sure how justified your claim is.
I hated the S10 finale. What a waste. All flashbacks and filler. The writers had clearly got other jobs to go to when they were doing that.
The oddest finale that wasn't is in Supernatural S5. Kripke had intended the show to run for 5 seasons - then it got renewed for a 6th. He'd got other fish to fry and was leaving as showrunner, so the whole final episode was a wrap up - it was even called Swan Song. That they then had to reboot it the whole thing and it's still on 5 seasons later has given them a few challenges. To say the least.
Buffy had a great ending. I thought True Blood wrapped up well to given the corner it'd painted itself into.
Miss Plato, watched the first 3-4 seasons or suchlike properly and saw bits and pieces afterwards. I did see the end of the final episode, which must've been especially cool for serious fans who watched it all for a decade. Lionel Luthor was rather good.
The Lib Dems major problem is that they are essentially a mini-Labour. We've seen their ministers, MPs and supporters are more comfortable criticising the Tories that they are actually in government with rather than the complete and utter balls up Labour made which they are trying to clear up.
We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?
Perhaps we can have a whip round and get the LDs the boxset of Masters Of Sex from HBO?
Michael Sheen is very good in it. I think S2 has just finished. I must catch up with that one - I'm getting overrun with the Fall new seasons/discussions.
Or perhaps HBO's Tell Me You Love Me would be more appropriate given their terrible poll ratings?! That was an oddly compelling series - like the shrink bit of Sopranos crossed with awkward single camera porn crossed with drama.
It's got a load of well known actors in it. I fell about laughing when I saw the guy who plays Peter [the FBI bloke from White Collar] sat on a sex therapist's couch discussing his issues. It was so weird and he did a very good job of looki,ng really uncomfortable. If it's on sometime - give it a go.
Surely the Lib Dems are going to have to hit the big red button.
Find a worthy cause, and pull the plug. Not boundary changes or House of Lords reform, or anything Westminster like that, but something at least reasonably important.
Education in good sex!
Pedant alert.
Masters of Sex is Sony Pictures TV.
I thought that was Showtime.
Apparently there's some medieval set musical comedy show airing this Fall. Sounds atrocious.
Showtime don't make TV shows, they just commission and licence them from production companies. Only Fox, HBO, Starz and ABC are vertically integrated in the US, everyone else licences shows from production companies.
How very peculiar. I remember once Philip Green [the notorious BHS man] was narked with Nicky Campbell on R5 one morning and rang in and got on air to *put the record straight*
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
While I agree that Labour would bitterly oppose PR, I think the LibDems would support it. Don't forget, they're likely to have 3% or so of the seats after the next election, on 10-12% of the votes. Their desire for more MPs, and the chance to be in government from time to time will more than outweigh their dislike of UKIP.
Mr Gifford called into the show halfway through the tirade to point out local authorities have a legal obligation to chase the money owed to them and describe Mr Salmond’s claims as “outrageous”.
The pair then exchanged insults before the First Minister told Ms Adams he had to ring off to attend to his duties. It was the latest in a series of interventions by the SNP leader that have raised eyebrows since he lost the independence referendum and announced he is standing down next month.
Two days after his defeat, Mr Salmond raised the prospect of Scotland unilaterally declaring independence and blamed elderly people for the result, arguing separation is inevitable after they die off.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
I can't see it being acceptable for the LDs to switch from one party to another in order to form a new coalition.
What on earth does that say about their priorities? It means they put power ahead of principles. If they had any trust left, it would evaporate overnight.
The LDs can, at most, offer a confidence and supply agreement with Labour - anything else would look dodgy and would see the complete wipeout of the Yellows in 2020.
What absolute tosh. In other countries around the world, there are coalitions from time-to-time and sometimes party A is aligned with party B, and sometimes with party C.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
While I agree that Labour would bitterly oppose PR, I think the LibDems would support it. Don't forget, they're likely to have 3% or so of the seats after the next election, on 10-12% of the votes. Their desire for more MPs, and the chance to be in government from time to time will more than outweigh their dislike of UKIP.
We've been supporting electoral reform to a more proportional basis for close to a century, since before Labour had ever formed a government and we were one of the 'big two'. We'd support it, and you couldn't just put it down to short term political calculations.
How very peculiar. I remember once Philip Green [the notorious BHS man] was narked with Nicky Campbell on R5 one morning and rang in and got on air to *put the record straight*
Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.
*shrugs* We do the best we can, I think we'd acknowledge that it's not equal due to the disparity of MPs, although naturally any party tries to play up the influence it has. Given how much of the talk comes out is about moderating the Tories (which implies a junior partnership) I'm not sure how justified your claim is.
Why play up the influence you have? Vanity? You're making a rod for your own back. By giving the impression you have lots more influence than you do, people are left wondering why the results look so Tory-like. The assumption is that the Lib Dems don't really disagree rather than being overwhelmed by numbers.
We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.
We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.
Goodness, you do talk a lot of tosh, don't you.
On that basis, if you went from 600 seats in the House of Commons to 400, because you'd lost a significant percentage you wouldn't have a mandate to govern.
CopperSulphate Clegg is trying to position the LDs between the 2, hence they back the cut of the 50p rate to 45p against Labour opposition, as well as austerity while being pro EU, socially liberal and pro immigration to differentiate them from the Tories, unfortunately, they have ended up with the most unpopular parts of both parties agendas
The only reason Labour brought in the 50% rate was to spite the Tories when they had to cut it again and look unpopular. They never would have done it if they thought they were going to win the 2010 election.
Labour are just as pro EU and pro immigration as the Lib Dems as well.
You could claim the Lib Dems are liberal, but I'd argue a massive all powerful nannying state is pretty much the opposite of that.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
While I agree that Labour would bitterly oppose PR, I think the LibDems would support it. Don't forget, they're likely to have 3% or so of the seats after the next election, on 10-12% of the votes. Their desire for more MPs, and the chance to be in government from time to time will more than outweigh their dislike of UKIP.
We've been supporting electoral reform to a more proportional basis for close to a century, since before Labour had ever formed a government and we were one of the 'big two'. We'd support it, and you couldn't just put it down to short term political calculations.
They voted against fairer boundaries as recommended by the electoral commission, probably because it would have meant they lost some MPs.
Seems more obvious to me that their love of PR is purely for their own personal gain.
Corporeal - you demonstrate what is so wrong with the Lib Dems. You talk about horse trading and negotiations as if it's 50/50. Until the Lib Dems acknowledge publicly that it is 80/20 they just look silly. It's pretty obvious that most of what the government does is Tory inspired and if the Lib Dems claim they're equal partners the public is left wondering why the government looks so Tory. Must be because the Lib Dems are Tory-lite.
*shrugs* We do the best we can, I think we'd acknowledge that it's not equal due to the disparity of MPs, although naturally any party tries to play up the influence it has. Given how much of the talk comes out is about moderating the Tories (which implies a junior partnership) I'm not sure how justified your claim is.
Why play up the influence you have? Vanity? You're making a rod for your own back. By giving the impression you have lots more influence than you do, people are left wondering why the results look so Tory-like. The assumption is that the Lib Dems don't really disagree rather than being overwhelmed by numbers.
"This is what we've achieved" is better than "we haven't managed to do much at all".
We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.
We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.
Goodness, you do talk a lot of tosh, don't you.
On that basis, if you went from 600 seats in the House of Commons to 400, because you'd lost a significant percentage you wouldn't have a mandate to govern.
If you did go from 600 seats to 400, then your mandate would have shrunk - that is obvious. You would have lost a significant percentage of support in the country.
Just as it is perfectly clear that if and when the LDs see their number of MPs shrink, so will their mandate to demand anything.
I think the let's not do PR because it will give seats to UKIP is a nonsense. If UKIP have won the votes then they should get the seats.
However, I suspect that with PR, people would realise that their vote is now serious and stop playing silly games....
So you think people who vote UKIP are playing silly games do you? And they wonder why so many people are turning their back on the establishment parties!
We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.
We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.
Goodness, you do talk a lot of tosh, don't you.
On that basis, if you went from 600 seats in the House of Commons to 400, because you'd lost a significant percentage you wouldn't have a mandate to govern.
If you did go from 600 seats to 400, then your mandate would have shrunk - that is obvious. You would have lost a significant percentage of support in the country.
Just as it is perfectly clear that if and when the LDs see their number of MPs shrink, so will their mandate to demand anything.
But they are still able to demand things, even if they have less weight behind them to ask for as much as they want. Political realities will see that they get what they can, regardless of how many seats they have - did they have more of a mandate to ask for things in 2005 when they had the most seats they've ever had, but had no ability to ask for anything because there was no hung parliament. This mandate talk is confusing me. In the unlikely event they can impact the make up of the next government they are free to ask for anything they want, and they will get a lot less than they want due to how many MPs they have to bargain with. There's no moral or any other problem with that behaviour as far as I can see.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
While I agree that Labour would bitterly oppose PR, I think the LibDems would support it. Don't forget, they're likely to have 3% or so of the seats after the next election, on 10-12% of the votes. Their desire for more MPs, and the chance to be in government from time to time will more than outweigh their dislike of UKIP.
We've been supporting electoral reform to a more proportional basis for close to a century, since before Labour had ever formed a government and we were one of the 'big two'. We'd support it, and you couldn't just put it down to short term political calculations.
They voted against fairer boundaries as recommended by the electoral commission, probably because it would have meant they lost some MPs.
Seems more obvious to me that their love of PR is purely for their own personal gain.
Recommended by the electoral commission? Such weasel words. You mean the boundary changes that Cameron and the Tories designed.
Then you lack any knowledge of the history on the subject.
Mr. Simon, choke off the funds, kill them on the battlefield. A caliphate with no land is no caliphate at all.
Of course, bloody easy to write that sat at a desk tapping away at a keyboard.
But they aren't on a battlefield in any conventional sense which makes their defeat even harder to engineer. We certainly can't defeat them via a battle of ideas.
I think the let's not do PR because it will give seats to UKIP is a nonsense. If UKIP have won the votes then they should get the seats.
However, I suspect that with PR, people would realise that their vote is now serious and stop playing silly games....
So you think people who vote UKIP are playing silly games do you? And they wonder why so many people are turning their back on the establishment parties!
Now now, the big two have essentially made the same argument about the LDs as well, that people are throwing their vote away on a protest, even when they have held 10% of the seats in the Commons.
Will you be voting LD in 2015, or have you switched too?
Possibly. At the moment I think the best result will be the most likely one: a Labour-LibDem coalition. Perhaps this will be a better coalition arrangement since the main problem I had with New Labour governments was their unchecked spending, and the LibDems, especially after their training under the Tories, might rein them in. Also there's a chance that we'll get PR and Britain will finally become a modern democracy.
If Labour are getting a larger percentage of the seats than they do vote share as is likely I do not believe for one minute they are going to agree to PR especially when currently the party that benefits the most is UKIP. Think about it. On 5% UKIP get 32 MPs on 10% of the vote they'd get 65 MP's on 20% 130 MPs. Labour and the Libdems are not going to do it.
Similarly given Labour dominate the House Of Lords I suspect reform in that area is unlikely to
While I agree that Labour would bitterly oppose PR, I think the LibDems would support it. Don't forget, they're likely to have 3% or so of the seats after the next election, on 10-12% of the votes. Their desire for more MPs, and the chance to be in government from time to time will more than outweigh their dislike of UKIP.
Perhaps but there is another consideration. They've already had one referendum on voting systems and been told in no uncertain terms NO. I really don't see that they will do themselves any good banging on about it
We also have to consider the case that the LDs are heading towards losing a significant percentage of their current constituencies. They have to consider whether they, in a situation where they have lost say 40-50% of their MPs, have any mandate for seeking to contribute to a future government.
We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.
Goodness, you do talk a lot of tosh, don't you.
On that basis, if you went from 600 seats in the House of Commons to 400, because you'd lost a significant percentage you wouldn't have a mandate to govern.
To be honest Robert given Clegg's terminal reputation amongst voters, I think it would be quite hard for him to play kingmaker after the next election. Not to say it won't happen but it will only enhance the anti-politics feeling out there. It's remarkable to think that in 2010 voters were happy to embrace coalition government/politicians working together in spite of so many politicians having told them before then that hung parliaments were a disaster and yet now after 4 years of 'successful' coalition, voters are sick to death of the idea. Clegg's central strategy was to make coalition government look a success, don't forget. Well he's ruined its reputation. When you add in the AV shambes he really has been a human wrecking ball for political reform, which was his own personal pet project within the coalition in 2010, when most people were concerned about an economic slump and Tory overeagerness for cuts.
Mr. Simon, choke off the funds, kill them on the battlefield. A caliphate with no land is no caliphate at all.
Of course, bloody easy to write that sat at a desk tapping away at a keyboard.
But they aren't on a battlefield in any conventional sense which makes their defeat even harder to engineer. We certainly can't defeat them via a battle of ideas.
IS are a conventional army, from unconventional origins.
The reason that they are dangerous is that they have moved on from being guerillas. The war against them needs to be intelligence and drone led.
OSimon Continue the air strikes and provide support for the Kurds on the ground and if need be bring Iran and Turkey in too, RIP Alan Henning a decent man brutally murdered, but I think we should also now put in a blanket ban on all travel to Syria and Iraq
Copper Sulphate Except Labour is now committed to restoring the 50% tax rate
Committed to something for political posturing reasons and in the knowledge that it will reduce the overall tax take from that sector of taxpayers. And then they commit to using the money they claim it will raise to fund various of their plans.
Comments
I doubt they will TSE, unless they have your knowledge of French - and even then they need to be 100% correct in every aspect of their clever cloggs translation, unlike a certain poster I could mention on here a few weeks back.
Btw, I must say that judging by the picture at the top of this thread, OGH has exceedingly clean windows in his lounge!
Let me know and I'll do a list with linkies for you.
There were warnings in 2010 that this would happen if they went into a coalition.
http://www.channel4.com/news/begg-mi5-gave-the-green-light-to-go-to-syria
Though Britain probably took orders to do so.
OK, back to politics True enough, but if we somehow end up with a situation where the LDs hold the balance of power again, I don't think anyone can complain if they pick the option they think gives them the greatest advantage. By electing that proportion, the public implicitly accepts that horsetrading will occur.
We are heading into uncharted territory in many, many ways.
If you're going to have a show about something, don't add sex-filler that eats large chunks of time for no reason other than titillation. At least True Blood did it in an entertaining way - it became a standing joke, pardon the pun...
Mr. kle4, after watching the first season, at your suggestion after I almost stopped, here are my thoughts on The 100:
http://thaddeusthesixth.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/the-100-first-season-review.html
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2014/10/david-camerons-birmingham-speech-re-examined.html
http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/politics/pm-upbeat-about-clacton-contest-1.607847
Even so, my colleague sees it as a very clear UKIP win, it will surprise no one to hear.
So the Conservatives are not just giving this a token effort. Are they road-testing ideas?
Apart from anything else, they presumably want a clear message that no defectors will get an easy ride.
Colin Ferguson isn't my cup of tea. He was great in Eureka!, but hmm in Haven, and now he's turned up as himself again in The Vampire Diaries as some sort of vigilante type to challenge Sheriff Forbes authority... Speaking of TVD, I don't really rate The Originals much. It was bad enough when this spin off took over most of S3/4 of TVD - the characters are too Scooby Dooish.
OUAT lost me about 18 shows in. After the Peter Pan thingy [a great bit of acting], I just stopped caring. And Snow and Charming are so DULL. I only want to watch Rumplestiltskin and Captain Hook.
I couldn't get into Continuum - I keep being told it's great. I'll have to try again during the Christmas Hellatus.
LOVE Justified. Arrow is filler for me - Stephen Amell is glorious as Oliver Queen, but I want him and Felicity to just get together. It reminds me a lot of Smallville. I can't stand Laurel. The actress that plays her Nicki Aycocks is much better as Ruby v1.0 in Supernatural.
http://www.clactonandfrintongazette.co.uk/news/clacton_frinton_news/11510833.David_Cameron_says__underdog__Tories_can_win_Clacton_by_election_during_visit_to_resort/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11137393/Alex-Salmond-attacked-for-creating-tax-dodgers-charter.html
I really liked Black Sails. That was great pirate fun. I think that's back for S2.
With the normal TV system of outlawing ugly people (particularly women), I thought Falling Skies, another post apocalyptic show, seemed to respond to such criticism in its second season in a slight way which was interesting. Obviously everyone was still good looking, but they were definitely grimier in the second season, with people with dyed hair having their darker roots showing through in a way that looked like they had just run out of dye or something. Nothing enough to detract from the Models of the apocalypse of course, but it felt like an effort had been made.
Agree on GoT S3 - I think it was a problem where certain actors were good and or popular and were kept on screen and plots stretched out where there wasn't enough to prevent it getting repetitive. And hell, they even cut down on the Sexposition in the latest season.
@Plato What struck me about S2 was that they added Felicity to the main cast list, and Laurel seemed to have almost nothing to do - I think they know which character is more interesting and better portrayed. I can see that, to some extent. A common refrain across many parties, but the leadership does seem to have been harder, more willing to compromise and adapt, than perhaps the membership thought was appropriate. I never hear a good word about the leadership from the local LDs in my area, and these are the ones still sticking with the party The WW2 thoughts in the piece intrigued me quite a bit and made some sense. Also, Their hypocrisy drives me mad. Our hypocrisy doesn’t' is a good line and often true, even if it applies to pundits just as much most of the time.
I used to be a huge gore fan and had to stop, as frankly I was becoming numb to it. After a long rest, I'm ready for a hit ;^ )
Supermodels of SHIELD, season 2, also comes to UK screens this month. For some reason (and unlike last time) it's a month behind the US screening. Lucy Lawless will be joining the cast (I think as a recurring guest, rather than regular).
In terms of the priorities, same as they've always been. Same as every party. To try and push our vision of Britain (which we naturally think is the best one). So we work with other parties where necessary to try to achieve that.
Whether it's trying to pull Labour or the Tories closer to our principles doesn't make much difference, we do what we can.
I think even the slightest hint of the vision Nige as PM entering Downing Street would terrify them!
Is it on S3 now?
You have some odd ideas about the motivations and basis for coalitions.
I forgot to mention Agents of SHEILD - that's just getting into its stride IMO - glad it got renewed. ABC have spent a fortune on the production values/SFX.
And of course Person of Interest is back on again now too for S4.
You can tell I don't travel by public transport too often. On the way back from London this evening, I found an empty seat in the otherwise-packed carriage. So I made my first mistake. I quickly sat down, only to discover the reason the seat was empty: the moquette was soaked in a pool of liquid that immediately soaked my bottom to the skin.
Then I made my second mistake: I instinctively put my hand on my trousers, only to coat my fingers in the foul-smelling liquid as well.
I found a seat in another carriage, and spent the next forty-five minutes wreathed in a rather dubious odour. Or at least, a more dubious odour than my usual one...
A nasty end to a rather spiffing day.
Having spent 5 years saying 'We need to do this to clear up the mess Labour left' and then jumping ship to joining Labour - it would be a very strange journey to suddenly cosy up to Balls and Miliband, two of the key members of Brown's economic team that created the problem.
That would show how few principles the LDs actually have.
Smallville meets Batman.
We've already got a big state left-wing party that mindlessly hates the Tories, what exactly do we need another one for? What exactly are they selling that you can't get from Labour?
Falling Skies - Aliens destroyed most of the world, group of a few hundred struggling to survive and fight back. Other aliens get involved. Toward the grimmer end of the genre.
Person of Interest is a terrifying show, and also amazing in how it pretended to be a fairly standard procedural crime show that transformed into the type of plot it now has.
I couldn't tell if it was trying to be Firefly, Supernatural, X-Files or what. Given the creator Eric Kripke was behind SPN and had a load of X-Files people working for him - it felt like they kept trying to revert back when they were lost story wise.
Nonsense. That would show that the Lib Dems are using what influence they have to get their policies (which they of course think are the best ones for the country, as every party does) followed as much as possible.
That's politics.
(And I wouldn't trust Farron to do the honourable thing either - assuming he is well-positioned to eventually replace Clegg)
EDIT Love original Adam West Batman. Did you like Smallville? Thought the casting in that was superb. Lex Luthor was marvellous, as was his dad. Tom Welling as Clarke was perfection. He was offered the role 3x before accepting it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/11139961/Alex-Salmond-rings-into-radio-talk-show-to-attack-local-council-leader.html
The oddest finale that wasn't is in Supernatural S5. Kripke had intended the show to run for 5 seasons - then it got renewed for a 6th. He'd got other fish to fry and was leaving as showrunner, so the whole final episode was a wrap up - it was even called Swan Song. That they then had to reboot it the whole thing and it's still on 5 seasons later has given them a few challenges. To say the least.
Buffy had a great ending. I thought True Blood wrapped up well to given the corner it'd painted itself into.
It was most amusing.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=94dypAomU9s
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29485405
On that basis, if you went from 600 seats in the House of Commons to 400, because you'd lost a significant percentage you wouldn't have a mandate to govern.
Labour are just as pro EU and pro immigration as the Lib Dems as well.
You could claim the Lib Dems are liberal, but I'd argue a massive all powerful nannying state is pretty much the opposite of that.
Seems more obvious to me that their love of PR is purely for their own personal gain.
Just as it is perfectly clear that if and when the LDs see their number of MPs shrink, so will their mandate to demand anything.
telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11140308/Tory-defector-Mark-Reckless-moves-family-into-hiding.html
However, I suspect that with PR, people would realise that their vote is now serious and stop playing silly games....
Horrific - utterly horrific
Dr. Spyn, sadly, not surprising.
Of course, bloody easy to write that sat at a desk tapping away at a keyboard.
Then you lack any knowledge of the history on the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/26/us/1992-campaign-overview-perot-says-he-quit-july-thwart-gop-dirty-tricks.html
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BzDK_BeIIAIbDyQ.jpg:large
The reason that they are dangerous is that they have moved on from being guerillas. The war against them needs to be intelligence and drone led.
Shows the reality of Labour economic thinking.