FPTP inevitably produces two party systems, which works if you live in a country that has a very narrow political spectrum where the vast majority of the population generally supports one or the other.
However there are severe accountability issues which are on full display at the moment. The governing party is carrying out a programme that is objectively not in the country's interests, and the supposed opposition is refusing to carry out its role of providing even the slightest bit of scrutiny. The other parties, no matter how much power they have, cannot do anything as they are not the official opposition and are more limited in their capacity to effectively hold the government to account.
We need to recognise the fact that this country has a very broad and diverse political spectrum, that people only seem to either vote Labour or Tory not because they agree with their policies but because they don't want the other lot to get in (interestingly enough there has been virtually zero actual support of Tory policies on this thread, just plenty of whinging that it is unfair to blame the Tories for the negative effects of their governance over the past 7 years) and that our political system is no longer fit for purpose. People can stick their heads in the sand over FPTP and pretend nothing's wrong but our politicians will continue to be totally shit until this is fixed.
I am sure most people would like a UK political climate which didn't have two parties reaching for the extremes of their respective ideologies, although not long ago there was a lot of grumbling that the two were too similar.
Can't win really - what would people prefer? Personally I would prefer a less extreme two party system which would focus on real issues affecting people's lives rather than waging ideological war and engaging in cheap point scoring.
I am going to love the finger jabbing get over it triumphalism when the Tories win.
Especially as it will make the exposure of their subsequent f**k ups all the more amusing.
I would like the Tories to win, and I am pretty sure the first item on the Tory agenda is to suss out how to win again in 2022.
Labour have never made any fuck ups before and would not make any going forward.
I am not bigging up Labour in this particular rant, but I am wholly negative about the Tories. maybe in an hour something will occur to me, but sitting here right now I am struggling to think of anything good the Tories have done. Maybe gay marriage is to their credit but I suppose not being a business person I feel an immense disconnect from people like Hunt, May, Johnson, Rees Mogg, Gove and so on. Weirdly I chatted to the Lewisham East Tory candidate at the 2015 hustings, and on a personal level I quite liked the bloke as a bloke, but he was a Tory and he would have voted for their stuff, so that was that.
There's some disconnect between a politician's personality and his actions in politics that I cannot fathom. Most MPs are generally nice people face to face. You wonder how they could vote through laws that cut child benefit and also think up stuff like forcing rape victims to prove their ordeal in order to claim certain benefits.Then the cunts vote it through and apparently cannot be held accountable for it.
What would the effect of adopting, instead of FPTP, F&SPTP, ie First and Second Past The Post?
I haven't seen this proposed anywhere, equally, I can't see why it couldn't be adopted as a means of lessening the likelihood of a two-party system.
How it would work is that each constituency would send two MPs to Westminster, the first- and second-placed candidates. But there would be a rule enforced that no party can submit more than one candidate in each constituency.
I think this would have a strong moderating effect. Very few constituencies have Labour and Conservative in the top two places. So, in most cases, when one of those parties wins a seat, they'd be joined by a "minority" party member too.
Ultimately it would not alter who "won" the election, but there would likely be a "better" representation on the opposition benches of Greens, Ukip, Independents, etc.
Some conventions might need to change, like the daft situation whereby the Speaker is traditionally unopposed by candidates from the larger parties.
It would require accommodating more MPs and/or enlarged constituencies. But, notwithstanding those issues, could such a system work?
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
Anyone that has seen the growth in use of food banks in the last seven years and still considers voting for the party under whom that increase has developed is offering tacit acceptance of food poverty.
In short, we can all choose either to vote *against* the Government whose policies have resulted in food poverty that's too widespread... or we can vote Conservative.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
Anyone that has seen the growth in use of food banks in the last seven years and still considers voting for the party under whom that increase has developed is offering tacit acceptance if good poverty.
In short, we can all choose either to vote *against* the Government whose policies have resulted in food poverty that's too widespread... or we can vote Conservative.
I agree the food bank stats are pretty damning. It's interesting to see on this thread what makes people tick and their priorities when voting
Which is precisely why you don't give "private exploits" into computers and devices to governments. They invariably get out of the right hands and into the wrong ones.
What would the effect of adopting, instead of FPTP, F&SPTP, ie First and Second Past The Post?
I haven't seen this proposed anywhere, equally, I can't see why it couldn't be adopted as a means of lessening the likelihood of a two-party system.
How it would work is that each constituency would send two MPs to Westminster, the first- and second-placed candidates. But there would be a rule enforced that no party can submit more than one candidate in each constituency.
I think this would have a strong moderating effect. Very few constituencies have Labour and Conservative in the top two places. So, in most cases, when one of those parties wins a seat, they'd be joined by a "minority" party member too.
Ultimately it would not alter who "won" the election, but there would likely be a "better" representation on the opposition benches of Greens, Ukip, Independents, etc.
Some conventions might need to change, like the daft situation whereby the Speaker is traditionally unopposed by candidates from the larger parties.
It would require accommodating more MPs and/or enlarged constituencies. But, notwithstanding those issues, could such a system work?
If there is a democratic deficit (and I believe there is) with FPTP, in that it is possible to be elected with less than a majority of valid votes cast, I don't see how this would be remedied by allowing the election of the next most successful candidate (who by definition will have even fewer votes) - it might make sense in tight votes, but a lot of constituencies are not.
If you insist that for each 2 seat constituency you will need to have a minimum quota that must be achieved, to ensure democratic mandates, you are effectively in the realm of PR (Single Transferable Vote).
Would it not be more sensible to allow for single seat constituencies, but with a PR element, where no-one can be elected without having achieved 50% + 1 of the votes? (Please note - for me multi-seat constituencies, operating a PR system is the most sensible solution).
There would be a number of counts, as candidates are eliminated, but (even allowing for the 50% figure having to be revised down, depending on votes) on at least some level, the winning candidate can actually claim to represent the majority of the electorate in the constituency.
Don't think paying licence fees would help, XP was not being suppprted (patches/updates) for some years now since 2014 by Microsoft - unless you know something I don't
There are two route causes for this situation: 1) Microsoft have pursued a policy of forced obsolescence for commercial gain - stop supporting old products in order to force people and organisations to upgrade even if the old product supports the applications and business requirements. They still offer support to governments and corporations, albeit at inflated prices. 2) Deliberate and unnecessary austerity pursued by the last two governments leading to relentless cost cutting and failure to recognise real risks in terms of people, process and IT. In 2014 Crown commercial services bought a year of support for £5M - this was not renewed in 2015. If the deficit was so important, then why was corporation tax reduced and why did the UK not join with the rest of the EU/OECD in pursuing those guilty of agressive tax avoidance?
If particular the following paragraph is of interest: "It is important to note that there are no plans to negotiate a further national extension of XP support beyond April 2015. It is therefore essential that all NHS organisations put in place robust plans to migrate away from Windows XP, Office 2003 and Exchange 2003 by that date if you have not already done so."
Sure but what does that cost, who is paying and what is the impact on people and processes? And where was the follow up a year later?
NB It appears that many bank cash machines run on XP and they didn't fall over on Friday. That's because Banks are paying for support!
I don't know, but I would imagine that part of the reason that ATMs would be unaffected would be that (allowing for the Link network) they are unlikely to be opening too many emails and attachments that would allow hackers access.
The vulnerability to ransomware can only exist where systems connect with the outside world.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
They don't seem any more ridiculous than Corbyn as Prime Minister and Abbott as his Home Secretary. That's the nub of this election.
Or May as Prime Minister and Johnson as her Foreign Secretary.
In the Charlton Life echo chamber you're of course right. Outside in the real world Corbyn and Labour are despised or at best mistrusted by most of the electorate. He's not the leader
Except unfortunately for Jeremy the truth is probably not in the photos. Were they taken on a work day by any chance? Do some people have other priorities, like getting on with their life? Do "shy Tories" still exist? (I'm still not voting.)
They don't seem any more ridiculous than Corbyn as Prime Minister and Abbott as his Home Secretary. That's the nub of this election.
Or May as Prime Minister and Johnson as her Foreign Secretary.
In the Charlton Life echo chamber you're of course right. Outside in the real world Corbyn and Labour are despised or at best mistrusted by most of the electorate. He's not the leader
Except unfortunately for Jeremy the truth is probably not in the photos. Were they taken on a work day by any chance? Do some people have other priorities, like getting on with their life? Do "shy Tories" still exist? (I'm still not voting.)
Nope. That is wholly representative of the UK populace and all you little Englanders that want everyone to die will see just how representative when Jeremy comes riding in to number 10 on his unicorn.
That'll show you all.
Have I mentioned how children are dying and it's all your fault?
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the effects of the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what they're voting for after all.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
They don't seem any more ridiculous than Corbyn as Prime Minister and Abbott as his Home Secretary. That's the nub of this election.
Or May as Prime Minister and Johnson as her Foreign Secretary.
In the Charlton Life echo chamber you're of course right. Outside in the real world Corbyn and Labour are despised or at best mistrusted by most of the electorate. He's not the leader
Except unfortunately for Jeremy the truth is probably not in the photos. Were they taken on a work day by any chance? Do some people have other priorities, like getting on with their life? Do "shy Tories" still exist? (I'm still not voting.)
Nope. That is wholly representative of the UK populace and all you little Englanders that want everyone to die will see just how representative when Jeremy comes riding in to number 10 on his unicorn.
That'll show you all.
Have I mentioned how children are dying and it's all your fault?
They don't seem any more ridiculous than Corbyn as Prime Minister and Abbott as his Home Secretary. That's the nub of this election.
Or May as Prime Minister and Johnson as her Foreign Secretary.
In the Charlton Life echo chamber you're of course right. Outside in the real world Corbyn and Labour are despised or at best mistrusted by most of the electorate. He's not the leader
Except unfortunately for Jeremy the truth is probably not in the photos. Were they taken on a work day by any chance? Do some people have other priorities, like getting on with their life? Do "shy Tories" still exist? (I'm still not voting.)
Nope. That is wholly representative of the UK populace and all you little Englanders that want everyone to die will see just how representative when Jeremy comes riding in to number 10 on his unicorn.
That'll show you all.
Have I mentioned how children are dying and it's all your fault?
Many times, along with a few others.
Hopefully you'll grasp the gravitas of the situation and will amend your views accordingly. Preferably to those of the true carers of this country. Those that don't want everyone, especially children, to die.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
Well, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
They don't seem any more ridiculous than Corbyn as Prime Minister and Abbott as his Home Secretary. That's the nub of this election.
Or May as Prime Minister and Johnson as her Foreign Secretary.
In the Charlton Life echo chamber you're of course right. Outside in the real world Corbyn and Labour are despised or at best mistrusted by most of the electorate. He's not the leader
Except unfortunately for Jeremy the truth is probably not in the photos. Were they taken on a work day by any chance? Do some people have other priorities, like getting on with their life? Do "shy Tories" still exist? (I'm still not voting.)
Nope. That is wholly representative of the UK populace and all you little Englanders that want everyone to die will see just how representative when Jeremy comes riding in to number 10 on his unicorn.
That'll show you all.
Have I mentioned how children are dying and it's all your fault?
Many times, along with a few others.
Hopefully you'll grasp the gravitas of the situation and will amend your views accordingly. Preferably to those of the true carers of this country. Those that don't want everyone, especially children, to die.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
It is a shame you can only like a post once!
I would add to that, what a pleasure it must be to know that sick old people are subsidising social care with their savings whereas those of us fortunate enough not to be in their vulnerable positions don't have to?These figures come from the bloody Daily Mail FFS! Why do so many people not see the injustice of this. Why does it not shmae them like it shames others. me included!
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
I don't know, but I would imagine that part of the reason that ATMs would be unaffected would be that (allowing for the Link network) they are unlikely to be opening too many emails and attachments that would allow hackers access.
The vulnerability to ransomware can only exist where systems connect with the outside world.
As you say, ATMs operate on secure bank networks and they don't open emails with dodgy links!
But it's of note, too, I think that banks in places such as India and Brazil have shifted their ATMs off Microsoft and on to Linux. (Brazil did this about nine years ago!)
The White House operates on Red Hat Linux. As does the US Army and the Navy's nuclear submarine fleet. Barclays uses it too.
I also found this wiki entry which is of interest in the circumstances: France's national police force started moving their 90,000 desktops from Windows XP to Ubuntu in 2007 over concerns about the additional training costs of moving to Windows Vista, and following the success of OpenOffice.org roll-outs. The migration should be completed by 2015. The force saved about €50 million on software licensing between 2004 and 2008.
So, generally, why businesses and governments seem happy paying Microsoft money is beyond my comprehension.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Your crystal ball would be worth a fortune on the open market.
So there's only two outcomes that can be equated from the last two terms in office? That seems as narrow a minded view as those that support the killing of children.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
Thanks, petal.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
Thanks, petal.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
Very brave man, you.
To be fair you proved me right with your response.
Looks like you can dish it out but not take it. Just like most trolls.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
Thanks, petal.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
Thanks, petal.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
Very brave man, you.
To be fair you proved me right with your response.
What a time to be alive when wanting the poor to have enough money to buy food is seen as dangerous loony leftism and unaffordable, whereas the party throwing billions down the drain on pointless ideological pet projects are seen as the strong and stable sensible economic choice.
You keep talking about the poor being able to buy food. Has anyone on here said they want to see people starving or have I missed something?
if good poverty.
???
"...of food poverty..."
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what their voting for after all.
Agree completely. Anyone that votes for a party that wants to kill everyone should be held to account.
How about public stonings?
We'll, ignoring the particularly lame attempt at a strawman argument, put it this way, why do you think Tory voters have no responsibility for the effects, which are entirely foreseeable, of the policies of their party of choice? The Tories have stood on a platform of austerity for the last two elections and we are seeing the results of those policies.
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
Don't think you're gonna get any kind of intelligent response from someone who appears to have just read 'Peppa Pig votes Tory' and appears to have spent all weekend making the same shit joke over and over again.
Thanks, petal.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
Very brave man, you.
To be fair you proved me right with your response.
Looks like you can dish it out but not take it. Just like most trolls.
Yep. I'm the one getting angry and calling people names. Big lolz.
You epitomise the 'can give it but not take it' mantra.
You're a very angry little man, as can be seen by the way you spit venom at those that disagree with you.
You are funny though, and at least you don't want children to die. That's a big tick from me.
Comments
However there are severe accountability issues which are on full display at the moment. The governing party is carrying out a programme that is objectively not in the country's interests, and the supposed opposition is refusing to carry out its role of providing even the slightest bit of scrutiny. The other parties, no matter how much power they have, cannot do anything as they are not the official opposition and are more limited in their capacity to effectively hold the government to account.
We need to recognise the fact that this country has a very broad and diverse political spectrum, that people only seem to either vote Labour or Tory not because they agree with their policies but because they don't want the other lot to get in (interestingly enough there has been virtually zero actual support of Tory policies on this thread, just plenty of whinging that it is unfair to blame the Tories for the negative effects of their governance over the past 7 years) and that our political system is no longer fit for purpose. People can stick their heads in the sand over FPTP and pretend nothing's wrong but our politicians will continue to be totally shit until this is fixed.
Can't win really - what would people prefer? Personally I would prefer a less extreme two party system which would focus on real issues affecting people's lives rather than waging ideological war and engaging in cheap point scoring.
Bloody left wing/ right wing US press
I haven't seen this proposed anywhere, equally, I can't see why it couldn't be adopted as a means of lessening the likelihood of a two-party system.
How it would work is that each constituency would send two MPs to Westminster, the first- and second-placed candidates. But there would be a rule enforced that no party can submit more than one candidate in each constituency.
I think this would have a strong moderating effect. Very few constituencies have Labour and Conservative in the top two places. So, in most cases, when one of those parties wins a seat, they'd be joined by a "minority" party member too.
Ultimately it would not alter who "won" the election, but there would likely be a "better" representation on the opposition benches of Greens, Ukip, Independents, etc.
Some conventions might need to change, like the daft situation whereby the Speaker is traditionally unopposed by candidates from the larger parties.
It would require accommodating more MPs and/or enlarged constituencies. But, notwithstanding those issues, could such a system work?
In short, we can all choose either to vote *against* the Government whose policies have resulted in food poverty that's too widespread... or we can vote Conservative.
The WannaCrypt exploits used in the attack were drawn from the exploits stolen from the National Security Agency, or NSA, in the United States.
https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2017/05/14/need-urgent-collective-action-keep-people-safe-online-lessons-last-weeks-cyberattack/#sm.0001ahdym2uscdvex172cn5de1qlz
If you insist that for each 2 seat constituency you will need to have a minimum quota that must be achieved, to ensure democratic mandates, you are effectively in the realm of PR (Single Transferable Vote).
Would it not be more sensible to allow for single seat constituencies, but with a PR element, where no-one can be elected without having achieved 50% + 1 of the votes? (Please note - for me multi-seat constituencies, operating a PR system is the most sensible solution).
There would be a number of counts, as candidates are eliminated, but (even allowing for the 50% figure having to be revised down, depending on votes) on at least some level, the winning candidate can actually claim to represent the majority of the electorate in the constituency.
1) Microsoft have pursued a policy of forced obsolescence for commercial gain - stop supporting old products in order to force people and organisations to upgrade even if the old product supports the applications and business requirements. They still offer support to governments and corporations, albeit at inflated prices.
2) Deliberate and unnecessary austerity pursued by the last two governments leading to relentless cost cutting and failure to recognise real risks in terms of people, process and IT. In 2014 Crown commercial services bought a year of support for £5M - this was not renewed in 2015. If the deficit was so important, then why was corporation tax reduced and why did the UK not join with the rest of the EU/OECD in pursuing those guilty of agressive tax avoidance?
https://gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/314721/DHandCabinetOfficeMicrosoftXPupdate8April14.pdf
If particular the following paragraph is of interest:
"It is important to note that there are no plans to negotiate a further national extension of XP support beyond April 2015. It is therefore essential that all NHS organisations put in place robust plans to migrate away from Windows XP, Office 2003 and Exchange 2003 by that date if you have not already done so."
Sure but what does that cost, who is paying and what is the impact on people and processes? And where was the follow up a year later?
NB It appears that many bank cash machines run on XP and they didn't fall over on Friday. That's because Banks are paying for support!
The vulnerability to ransomware can only exist where systems connect with the outside world.
(I'm still not voting.)
That'll show you all.
Have I mentioned how children are dying and it's all your fault?
Sausage fingers aside I think he's got a point myself don't you? Those planning on electing May need to start owning some responsibility for the effects of the policies they are voting for. Like increased homelessness, the rise of food banks, child poverty, cuts to our police, military, prison service, social care system, etc, etc, etc. That's what they're voting for after all.
How about public stonings?
Either you're overall happy with those results and will support them again or you think they've got it wrong. I happen to think the second is all.
I would add to that, what a pleasure it must be to know that sick old people are subsidising social care with their savings whereas those of us fortunate enough not to be in their vulnerable positions don't have to?These figures come from the bloody Daily Mail FFS! Why do so many people not see the injustice of this. Why does it not shmae them like it shames others. me included!
But it's of note, too, I think that banks in places such as India and Brazil have shifted their ATMs off Microsoft and on to Linux. (Brazil did this about nine years ago!)
The White House operates on Red Hat Linux. As does the US Army and the Navy's nuclear submarine fleet. Barclays uses it too.
I also found this wiki entry which is of interest in the circumstances: France's national police force started moving their 90,000 desktops from Windows XP to Ubuntu in 2007 over concerns about the additional training costs of moving to Windows Vista, and following the success of OpenOffice.org roll-outs. The migration should be completed by 2015. The force saved about €50 million on software licensing between 2004 and 2008.
So, generally, why businesses and governments seem happy paying Microsoft money is beyond my comprehension.
(In the main I use Linux Mint.)
So there's only two outcomes that can be equated from the last two terms in office? That seems as narrow a minded view as those that support the killing of children.
You seem very angry of late. Name calling extraordinaire.
Very brave man, you.
Looks like you can dish it out but not take it. Just like most trolls.
Carry on.
You epitomise the 'can give it but not take it' mantra.
You're a very angry little man, as can be seen by the way you spit venom at those that disagree with you.
You are funny though, and at least you don't want children to die. That's a big tick from me.