brown or cameron

[blake_]

who do trust to run then contry then, you could also say this is labour Vs conservative Vs lib dems

[Laika]

Neither, Nick Clegg for PM! Please could to add Liberal Democrats to this poll too?

[blake_]

is Nick Clegg head of the lib dems?

[Laika]

Aye, he is.

[ardjoe]

David Cameron.

[blake_]

Aye, he is.

i dont know how to add to the Poll?

[Nagisa24]

david cameron is a c*nt and anyone who votes for him is an idiot. do people not remember how the tories f*cked this country up in the 70's 80's and 90's. i urge everyone to vote for brown as he is the lesser of 2 evils. nick clegg is just a waste of space. theres more chance of me becoming pm than clegg.

Language, Nagisa. There's getting your point across, and then there's just being inappropriate.

[Laika]

Don't vote for a party because of their past?

So should we hate German's because of Hitler? Of course we bloody well shouldn't.

[Bazzer.]

David Cameron

[Nagisa24]

no coz the german sarent nazi's now. but the tories are still toffs who will fleece the little man for everything they can. and apologies for the language.

[Noscaasi]

I hate politics, bores me to death but David Cameron is such an annoying human being he will never get my vote! All those publicity stunts like the camera in his home and his general smugness wind me up and i dont even know the guy. So for that reason Brown for me.

[Laika]

He's like a teacher who uses youth-colloquialisms in order to get 'down with the kids'. The sickening Tory Toff.

[Noscaasi]

He's like a teacher who uses youth-colloquialisms in order to get 'down with the kids'. The sickening Tory Toff.

lol exactly, and just like my digital media teacher at college it makes him seems weird and a incredibly annoying!

[sergeantpepperUK]

Brown because its better the devil you know than the devil you dont.

[liambonner]

Neither. They will both put the country in to even more of a mess no matter who it is

[Haza103]

Damn, i think we're better off with the monster raving looney party then any of these two...... But if it would have to be a choice, it would be David Cameron because Labour is too soft on everyone. No wonder were full of people on benefits who shouldn't be entitled to it.

[Laika]

Which is why we should all vote Lib Dem, better the devil that-hasn't-even-been-given-a-chance-to-fuck-up-the-country-yet, not to mention they're scrapping tuition fees.

[blake_]

the lib dems are so deprate they would say anything to get a vote as their so far behind(last time i checked)

[Laika]

the lib dems are so deprate they would say anything to get a vote as their so far behind(last time i checked)

Surely they'd just adopt the same policies at the two main parties as it 'works for them'?

[Nagisa24]

in this recession i dont think the lib dems should get in as they have no experience to deal with it.

[Laika]

in this recession i dont think the lib dems should get in as they have no experience to deal with it.

The next election is likely to be called AFTER the recession, predicted to end on 15 months, the next election can be called anytime up until, I think, June 2010?

Besides, nobody has ever had to deal with an economic crisis of this magnitude, so nobody is thus 'qualified' with the experience necessary to deal with it, surely?

[blake_]

Surely they'd just adopt the same policies at the two main parties as it 'works for them'?

they could do but if they want to get in frount they need their own policies to make people vote for them.

[Laika]

they could do but if they want to get in frount they need their own policies to make people vote for them.

Then why aren't the BNP in right now? :devilish:

[blake_]

Then why aren't the BNP in right now? :devilish:

because most people think BNP is rasict? or thats the image they sort of give off.

[Laika]

They've got their own policies though :P Even so, the Lib Dems are doing nothing different to any other party, moulding their policies to current public opinion.

[blake_]

which is hard seeing as the public dont really know what they want, they just shout at anyone who is in charge.
i just dont think the lib dems are in the picture at the moment but it could change?

[Laika]

Everyone I've talked to about the Lib Dems has generally been 'I would vote for them, but they won't win'. If everybody who thought like that voted for them, then they bloody might!

[Haza103]

Gordon Brown reminds me of a little Kid. Put a child in a game and make them a leader, and they'll probably throw a strop if they get that taken away from them. He's been under a lot of pressure to hold a general election, but refuses not to. Just because he think he is the best to get us through the recession.

But isn't that our job to decide who's best?

[Nagisa24]

no because a lot of the british public are idiots who'd just vote for tories because they think its labours fault for the recession. imo not everyone should have the vote.

[Haza103]

no because a lot of the british public are idiots who'd just vote for tories because they think its labours fault for the recession. imo not everyone should have the vote.

Well, although it's not Labours fault for the recession having someone who people see as better would sure help. Lets just say the media arent gonna help get us out quickly. at the way we are going.

And why should we not be allowed to vote? Thats the whole point of a democracy.

[Laika]

Gordon Brown reminds me of a little Kid. Put a child in a game and make them a leader, and they'll probably throw a strop if they get that taken away from them. He's been under a lot of pressure to hold a general election, but refuses not to. Just because he think he is the best to get us through the recession.

But isn't that our job to decide who's best?

Personally I think he should hold of the election as long as humanly possible, over a year, only for my own selfish ends, mind. I want to vote!

[blake_]

i cant vote anyway so i dont care who is in power!

[amplifiedAnt]

Neither of those, Lib Dems all the way for me. Pushing me to choose from those two, it would have to be Brown. Having said that, if the ID card scheme comes to fruition, I won't be hanging around anyway, so it won't matter a jot to me who's in charge.

As for the attitude of not voting Liberal Democrat because 'they won't get in,' it's very often not the case. My hometown is resolutely Tory, but the Lib Dems are pretty close behind. If the fringe voters went for the Lib Dems instead of Labour (who are closer to the right wing now than they've ever been anyway), it would be another Liberal Democrat seat. Willing to bet there's a few constituencies where this is the case (although of course it works both ways). Where I currently live (Southsea, nr. Portsmouth) the seat is filled by a Liberal MP, but then it's quite a youthful area.

For my money the Lib Dems DO have policies to set them apart from the major two:

1. Their human rights/civil liberty awareness (this is almost enough on its own). They don't want to be 'Big Brother' and strongly oppose the National Identity Scheme - and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
P.S. If you're not sure why the ID cards are a bad idea, go read www.no2id.com and come back with your counter-arguments as necessary.

2. Their law policies. Here's a party quote:
""The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
I.e. We're not going to doing stupid and use the 'Terrorism Act' to prosecute people that do something as innocuous as walking in a cycle lane, or speaking up in parliament (both of which HAVE happened!)

3. Financial policies.
Further reform over current taxation - the rich pay a bit more than currently, the poor pay less. Tuition fees to be scrapped (goodness knows that's well overdue). Why must bright students get into ~£20,000 of debt to start their career? It only serves to promote elitism in wealth, not talent.

There's more, but you get the picture.

I agree that they will never be truly socialist or left wing, but I think they represent a good cross-section of the majority of the country (the majorly wealthy are in the minority after all).

[Laika]

Neither of those, Lib Dems all the way for me. Pushing me to choose from those two, it would have to be Brown. Having said that, if the ID card scheme comes to fruition, I won't be hanging around anyway, so it won't matter a jot to me who's in charge.

As for the attitude of not voting Liberal Democrat because 'they won't get in,' it's very often not the case. My hometown is resolutely Tory, but the Lib Dems are pretty close behind. If the fringe voters went for the Lib Dems instead of Labour (who are closer to the right wing now than they've ever been anyway), it would be another Liberal Democrat seat. Willing to bet there's a few constituencies where this is the case (although of course it works both ways). Where I currently live (Southsea, nr. Portsmouth) the seat is filled by a Liberal MP, but then it's quite a youthful area.

For my money the Lib Dems DO have policies to set them apart from the major two:

1. Their human rights/civil liberty awareness (this is almost enough on its own). They don't want to be 'Big Brother' and strongly oppose the National Identity Scheme - and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
P.S. If you're not sure why the ID cards are a bad idea, go read www.no2id.com and come back with your counter-arguments as necessary.

2. Their law policies. Here's a party quote:
""The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
I.e. We're not going to doing stupid and use the 'Terrorism Act' to prosecute people that do something as innocuous as walking in a cycle lane, or speaking up in parliament (both of which HAVE happened!)

3. Financial policies.
Further reform over current taxation - the rich pay a bit more than currently, the poor pay less. Tuition fees to be scrapped (goodness knows that's well overdue). Why must bright students get into ~£20,000 of debt to start their career? It only serves to promote elitism in wealth, not talent.

There's more, but you get the picture.

I agree that they will never be truly socialist or left wing, but I think they represent a good cross-section of the majority of the country (the majorly wealthy are in the minority after all).

I think I love you, and couldn't have put it better myself. As well as being anti-Iraq before it became 'cool' to do so.

A educational system in which the countries brightest and arguably the most beneficial to society have to pay in order to progress is highly, highly flawed. Although, what do I know? Apart from that most of the current MPs had free University tuition.

[blake_]

Neither of those, Lib Dems all the way for me. Pushing me to choose from those two, it would have to be Brown. Having said that, if the ID card scheme comes to fruition, I won't be hanging around anyway, so it won't matter a jot to me who's in charge.

As for the attitude of not voting Liberal Democrat because 'they won't get in,' it's very often not the case. My hometown is resolutely Tory, but the Lib Dems are pretty close behind. If the fringe voters went for the Lib Dems instead of Labour (who are closer to the right wing now than they've ever been anyway), it would be another Liberal Democrat seat. Willing to bet there's a few constituencies where this is the case (although of course it works both ways). Where I currently live (Southsea, nr. Portsmouth) the seat is filled by a Liberal MP, but then it's quite a youthful area.

For my money the Lib Dems DO have policies to set them apart from the major two:

1. Their human rights/civil liberty awareness (this is almost enough on its own). They don't want to be 'Big Brother' and strongly oppose the National Identity Scheme - and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
P.S. If you're not sure why the ID cards are a bad idea, go read www.no2id.com and come back with your counter-arguments as necessary.

2. Their law policies. Here's a party quote:
""The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
I.e. We're not going to doing stupid and use the 'Terrorism Act' to prosecute people that do something as innocuous as walking in a cycle lane, or speaking up in parliament (both of which HAVE happened!)

3. Financial policies.
Further reform over current taxation - the rich pay a bit more than currently, the poor pay less. Tuition fees to be scrapped (goodness knows that's well overdue). Why must bright students get into ~£20,000 of debt to start their career? It only serves to promote elitism in wealth, not talent.

There's more, but you get the picture.

I agree that they will never be truly socialist or left wing, but I think they represent a good cross-section of the majority of the country (the majorly wealthy are in the minority after all).


wow thought i was reading laika's post what is wronge with the ID cards shourly it will stop fraud more? and you'll never forget your personal details.

[Laika]

wow thought i was reading laika's post what is wronge with the ID cards shourly it will stop fraud more? and you'll never forget your personal details.

First is ID cards, then comes 1984. It's another form of control. And are you honestly telling me you've never forgotten a password/username etc?

[davidtcawley]

It's a shame that in this country we don't have a political leader in the mould of Barack Obama. He is a fantastic orator with a clear vision of what America and the world needs.
I'm afraid we're stuck with bumbling idiots, spin and sleaze.
No wonder most of the electorate are struck with political apathy- who cares if it's Brown or Cameron leading us? Same shit different name.

[blake_]

First is ID cards, then comes 1984. It's another form of control. And are you honestly telling me you've never forgotten a password/username etc?

corse not i have a brain like an elephant just not as big :P

[Wraxend]

Neither
i don't trust anyone in politics at the moment well at least not british or haven't seen anyone trust worthy they're all just there to further their own carriers from what i can tell

[Laika]

Neither
i don't trust anyone in politics at the moment well at least not british or haven't seen anyone trust worthy they're all just there to further their own carriers from what i can tell

The sad fact is power corrupts people, or even he illusion of power.

[amplifiedAnt]

I think I love you, and couldn't have put it better myself. As well as being anti-Iraq before it became 'cool' to do so.

A educational system in which the countries brightest and arguably the most beneficial to society have to pay in order to progress is highly, highly flawed. Although, what do I know? Apart from that most of the current MPs had free University tuition.


Fo sho' :P Basically just seem to have their heads screwed on and are more in touch with the world as it is.



wow thought i was reading laika's post what is wronge with the ID cards shourly it will stop fraud more? and you'll never forget your personal details.


I take it you didn't click onto the www.no2id.com link that I posted?

OK, since you asked...

First and foremost, they're nothing more than a laminated poll tax.

As it stands, taxpayers are paying £300 each for the identity scheme before it has even started (£18bn, THREE TIMES the original estimate already), which will rise as the project overruns, drags and inevitably fails. That's on top of the proposed £100 cost of the card that you WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR OR DIE (slight exaggeration notwithstanding).

Thing is, it's not the card that's the main problem, it's the centralised database that a) won't work and b) is just asking for trouble once criminals get in (which they will - NO computerised security measure is infallible).

One glimmer of hope for opponents of the scheme is the government's previous record with IT-related projects. The computerisation of the NHS (once quoted as being "the world's biggest civil information technology programme") has been long, drawn-out and incredibly painful - still lacking definitive conclusion. Given the even larger scale of a NIS (National Identity Scheme) database, is there any hope for the government of EVER getting it up and running?

At the same time it's also very worrying. The NHS scheme was initially predicted to cost £2.4 billion, but recent estimates by officials indicate that this could well run to £20bn!

There are other parallels between the two - both projects could well cumulate to nothing more than heinously expensive white elephants, of no tangible benefit to the citzens of the nation. Both will be horrendously resource-extensive. Both will carry potential security flaws that could be disastrous to the lives of those people that the system is supposed to enhance.

The main difference is that the NIS database will be even larger than the NHS one, meaning that the problems will only be exacerbated - the cost of the ID scheme has already run to the £18bn quoted before (running costs cited at over half a billion per year) - how much further will this rise to? I saw a good article at the end of last year on the Guardian website which asked the question "What happens when everyone tries to swipe their cards at once?" It's a very, very valid one. If so much of life is to depend upon this system and it cannot handle the strain, we will be the ones to suffer.

However, heart can be taken from the fact that 78% of the nation (source: Yougov 2006 - if you believe surveys to be representative) are unhappy with the concept of the database, with only 11% of people surveyed confident in the ability of the government to protect our data. If people won't take it lying down, there's less chance for it to succeed.

Time and again it is ignored that it is the database and information warehousing that people are most unhappy about. If we live in a democracy, shouldn't the government start taking heed to the dissenters?"

No security system in the entire world is flawless and a centralised database will be an incredibly easy target. Dangerous, dangerous stuff considering the amount of information that they'll be holding. Given that the government seems to think that encryption means password protection, and they keep leaving un-encrypted information here, there and everywhere, there's little reason to think that the situation will improve when the NIS is deployed (IF it is).

BTW, how do these compliance measures sound(?):

1. An appointment to be photographed, have fingerprints taken and iris scanned, on penalty of a fine of up to £2500. Additional fines of up to £2500 may be levied for each failure to comply until the subject submits to these procedures.

2. To promptly inform the police or Home Office if a card is lost or damaged, on penalty of a fine of up to £1000, or imprisonment for up to 51 weeks. If someone found another person's card and did not immediately hand it in, they would have committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or both.

3. To promptly inform the National Identity Register of any change of address, on penalty of a fine of up to £1000.

4. To promptly inform the National Identity Register of significant changes to one's personal life or any errors they have made, on penalty of a fine of up to £1000. It may also be required to submit to being re-interviewed, re-photographed, re-fingerprinted and re-scanned, or face a fine.


Say goodbye to freedom of movement and say hello to cries akin to those heard during World War II - "papers please!"



TL;DR version/addendum:


a) There is very little tangible benefit for the person on the street. Anything that the ID card can do, it's already incredibly easy to do with other forms of identification. As an optional scheme, maybe it would work, but then who would spend £100 on a form of ID that's cheaper to obtain elsewhere?

b) Why do they need control over this data? When you apply for a passport or whatever, the data they record is fit for purpose. Are they saying that in order to be a citizen of the country that recording your personal details (including biometric data) is still fit for purpose? I don't agree that it is, and it's going to open up a whole new world of abuse of the system.

c) Data held on one centralised database means that all of your information can be looked up (or worse, edited) by civil servants, lost by stupid government employees or just sold off to anyone who can pay the price (like the electoral roll). This opens up whole worlds of opportunity for identity theft.

d) The government is LYING. Jacqui Smith says it'll help combat terrorism. Independent studies have shown this to be false. They claim that it will aid management of immigration - so why not introduce the system just for immigrants? Why am I being treated as a criminal in my home country? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[vertigu9219]

I almost spat out my sandwich when i saw this thread.
Is that our choice? Dumb or dumber?
And has anyone heard of Nick Clegg? They cloned cameron and gave him a yellow tie.

All politicians are bad. ID cards are very bad.

[blake_]

Fo sho' :P Basically just seem to have their heads screwed on and are more in touch with the world as it is.





I take it you didn't click onto the www.no2id.com link that I posted?




no i didnt i got bored after 3 lines

[Laika]

no i didnt i got bored after 3 lines

Well doesn't that just say it all? :bomb:

[amplifiedAnt]

no i didnt i got bored after 3 lines


If you don't care, you barely deserve your liberty. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[blake_]

dictatorship woohooo