151 replies to this topic

[Athena]

I'd say this forum has pretty active the last few days. This topic is exactly where it should be.

[Tom]

communism - a world without a government ruled by the people.

Communism is sorta the opposite of that... or at least the only way to make it work is. The only government where the people are ruled by the people is anarchy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually incorrect, socialism is the transition to communism, marx wrote that a communist country would survive without a government (therefore anarchy) and kept alive by the people, however that could never happen unless the whole world was communist, and it makes the system very vulnerable anyway.

I'll respond to the other stuff later when i have more time to read it...

[AdmiralGT]

The information bank is not any more an infringment on our rights than today's society.  Every single information about you can be obtained by anyone, a little something called the freedom of information act.  The further technology advances the more and more your so called private information becomes a public access.  Your entire work history, your previous marriages, how many times you have been arrested and for what, where you went to school.  Nearly every aspect of your life can be obtained by someone that knows the right type of people.  This is becoming more and more a reality with the renewal of the patriot act, and the same is happening in the UK as well.  Instead of running and denying the truth lets be reasonable.  You call me an idealist while im not the one who refuses to accept what is blatantly true.

In the UK, this is wrong. We have a very important Act in the UK called the Data Protection Act. Now, this prevents people from giving out information held about me without my consent. Recently, I went back to work during my holidays, and needed a reference. One of these was from my university, but because they hold information about me, I have to write a letter of consent allowing them to release information about me.
While yes, any aspect of my life can be found out by someone who knows the right people may be true (and very cynical) there are millions of people who can't. Quite frankly I don't want my next door neighbour to know or be able to obtain where I went to school or what grades I attained.

The goal is to get rid of the bureaucracy all together.  The whole purpose of this topic is to brainstorm.  How do you tell how much everyone in the group is doing.  It is really easy when you are just telling how much one person is doing.  Perhaps a group evaluation, where each person in the group tells not how much they did but how much everyone in the group did but themselves.  Thats just a basic idea, easily flawed.  I dont know the answer, but however we acheieve the solution it will be together.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you ever worked in a group? Group evaluation doesn't work, because no-one will ever stick their neck out and say they did more or less than someone else.

On some other points, you can never achieve 100% employment, by very human nature this isn't possible. There are some people who will never work, no matter what the reward, and there are some people who can't work.

And lastly, you tell us not to think of things as impossible, and yet you precisely tell us that it is impossible for any engine to run at 100% efficiency. Surely you just aren't thinking outside of the box and that one day we will have a 100% effecient engine? Now I study physics, and I'd like to think we've got this pretty much nailed down that it is impossible, and the Carnot engine will be the most effecient engine you will ever be able to make, we might be wrong, but it's unlikely. But if this 100% effecient engine is impossible, so are some of your ideas. If it is possible, then so may be some of your ideas.

[Comrade Kal]

The way to near 100% unemployment is to work less. If we all worked four hours a day, everybody could be employed easily and we'd all be better off.

[AdmiralGT]

That's not true Kal. There might be jobs where skills are lacking for people to be only able to work for 4 hours a day. If there are only 2 people a day for a job, that's only 8 hours covered, when you might need 24.

And also, as I keep stating, some people will never work, no matter what the reward. This reduces as the reward increases, but while they don't see a significant reward for working, they will not work and hence will be unemployed.

[Silent_Killa]

Actually incorrect, socialism is the transition to communism, marx wrote that a communist country would survive without a government (therefore anarchy) and kept alive by the people, however that could never happen unless the whole world was communist, and it makes the system very vulnerable anyway.

As I said, in theory it's ruled by the people, but it could never work that way.

Thats what im trying to get through, impossible is only what we make of it. Some said it was impossible to go to the moon. Before that they said it was impossible that the world was round, they said that it was impossible that earth was not the center of the universe. How many times through history have 'they' been wrong? For years we used Aristotles ideals on how the universe worked when in fact nearly everything he said was wrong. Heavier objects DO NOT fall faster in every case - he was only later debunked by a heretic who had to work in complete secrecy.

Fine, it's not impossible, just highly improbable.

[Drewry]

Im not familiar with Brittish laws. But I am with where I live - America. However if you will notice that the original thread (A new government), states that this is to happen in Europe and Europe only. Nearly every englishman I've spoken with do not count themselves as european. So this whole system doesnt even concern the UK.

The difference between an engine running at 100% efficiency is a law of physics called friction that makes it impossible. Are there laws of humanity? No, only theories. If we are bounded by laws then of course it is impossible. Like I could easily say that no matter how much I thought outside of the box, I could never walk on water since I allready know that it is a law. Now if I didnt know it was a law then there is an extremely slight chance that it is possible. But that law is allready registered in my brain to be true. Do you see what im saying?

I can easily see where you are coming from though. As many people are very content with democracy. But the more people we have the more democracy just seems to be a bad idea. How can you limit the voice of every person to two people representing a state of millions, or a few people representing the voice of millions. Many feel that there is not enough say in the government, and this is becoming an increasing reality.

This will become dangerous because when less people have a say in the government then the more corruption will set in. I think that we need to be working towards something new. Anyway, this is directed to AdmiralGT: Did you read the 'new government' topic? As the more I see your questions the more I feel you didnt.

Edited by Drewry, 29 August 2005 - 09:14 PM.

[AdmiralGT]

Im not familiar with Brittish laws.  But I am with where I live - America.  However if you will notice that the original thread (A new government), states that this is to happen in Europe and Europe only.  Nearly every englishman I've spoken with do not count themselves as european.  So this whole system doesnt even concern the UK.

The UK is part of Europe, it's even part of the EU and has a veto vote. Considering the majority of our trade is with Europe only due to our tariff barries, I can certainly say that the UK is part of Europe.

The difference between an engine running at 100% efficiency is a law of physics called friction that makes it impossible.  Are there laws of humanity?  No, only theories.  If we are bounded by laws then of course it is impossible.  Like I could easily say that no matter how much I thought outside of the box, I could never walk on water since I allready know that it is a law.  Now if I didnt know it was a law then there is an extremely slight chance that it is possible.  But that law is allready registered in my brain to be true.  Do you see what im saying?

Physics taught us that the universe revolves around us, that the Earth was flat. You even quote us these facts.

Some said it was impossible to go to the moon. Before that they said it was impossible that the world was round, they said that it was impossible that earth was not the center of the universe

And yet now Physics defines a engine as being unable to at 100% effeciency is an actual rule. You can't use a physics example as to argue nothing is impossible and yet simultaneously define something as being impossible.
And, for correction, Friction does not cause us to not to be able to make a 100% effecient engine. The very nature of a gas makes it so. There is a theoretical maximum effeciency engine (the Carnot engine) which presumes no friction. It is the very relationship of the ideal gas equation (PV = NkT or nRT depending on Constants) that determines the maximum effeciency.

I can easily see where you are coming from though.  As many people are very content with democracy.  But the more people we have the more democracy just seems to be a bad idea.  How can you limit the voice of every person to two people representing a state of millions, or a few people representing the voice of millions.  Many feel that there is not enough say in the government, and this is becoming an increasing reality.

How can you allow everyone to have a voice? It takes months to organise a General Election where everyone has the possibilty to vote. This can't possibly happen for every decision that needs to be made. This is why we have representatives, so decisions get made, rather than spending months at a time deciding. Added to that, these people are able to consider all the facts. It would take us far too long to mull over every possible decision and actually be able to make an informed decision.

This will become dangerous because when less people have a say in the government then the more corruption will set in.  I think that we need to be working towards something new.  Anyway, this is directed to AdmiralGT:  Did you read the 'new government' topic?  As the more I see your questions the more I feel you didnt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I did read it, painful as it was since you neglected to use paragraphs as you do now.
I fail to see why this plan should only take place in Europe. You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of British Politics that the ideaology that you have this grandure scheme to reform the whole of Europe (of which I doubt you know similarly little knowledge about). Do you not think that you are not the first to have this idea? I ask the simple question, that if democracy is so bad, why is it the most popular imposed system of government across our globe?
Democracy has been around for centuries, and it has taken us centuries for one person to apparently suggest the greatest reform in our political system in the history of mankind. Prehaps this is my natural cynacism, but I highly doubt you have found the magical political system that the world has been waiting for.

[Drewry]

but I highly doubt you have found the magical political system that the world has been waiting for

AdmiralGT you have a severe problem with other ideas outside of your own. You will not accept anything new that you did not come up with yourself. That is how I take you to be.

I fail to see why this plan should only take place in Europe. You've demonstrated a lack of knowledge of British Politics that the ideaology that you have this grandure scheme to reform the whole of Europe (of which I doubt you know similarly little knowledge about).

For one I have a great knowlege of European life, for one I live there for months at a time every so years and will be studying at a university there this summer. My dad has spent a third of his life in france and equally the same with my mom.

Physics taught us that the universe revolves around us, that the Earth was flat. You even quote us these facts.

No those were not laws. Those were all assumptions and theories. There was never any practical method of making that a law until much later.

How can you allow everyone to have a voice?

If you would stop acting so high and mighty like a pompus little brat then you would know that is what we are trying to achieve by brainstorming.

And yet now Physics defines a engine as being unable to at 100% effeciency is an actual rule. You can't use a physics example as to argue nothing is impossible and yet simultaneously define something as being impossible.
And, for correction, Friction does not cause us to not to be able to make a 100% effecient engine. The very nature of a gas makes it so. There is a theoretical maximum effeciency engine (the Carnot engine) which presumes no friction. It is the very relationship of the ideal gas equation (PV = NkT or nRT depending on Constants) that determines the maximum effeciency.

Where did you learn your thermodynamics from? That is not the ONLY way efficiency is lost. You talk to any engineering professor and you will know that friction is one of the MAJOR reasons engines cannot be 100% efficient. And why can I not use that as an example? One is bound to laws and another isnt? I dont see your logic.

The UK is part of Europe, it's even part of the EU and has a veto vote. Considering the majority of our trade is with Europe only due to our tariff barries, I can certainly say that the UK is part of Europe.

Oh wow europe is apart of europe, i thought there was something called the english chanel that seperates it from europe. Dont start screaming that I misunderstood you becuase I didnt, I know you didnt mean that literally but still. If the UK is so pro Europe then why are they the only country that does not use the Euro? Why France contributed millions to make it work for countries with poor economies like spain and italy.

I ask the simple question, that if democracy is so bad, why is it the most popular imposed system of government across our globe?

Becuase we have all seen what happens if you use governments outside of democracy (Iraq). You loose 40,000 citizens in hostile takeover. Democracy is being spread by much force the same way communism was. And I have seen you argue in several topics about how bad communism is. So I ask a simple question, if communism is so bad how come it was used for years across the globe and still is today.

Look we could argue all day about who is right and who is wrong and we would get nowhere. I said this earlier that if this topic bothers you than DONT Post on it. We need posts here that contribute to the government not distract from it. Everyone but you seems to want to help out. Why dont you drop the condescending attitude and humble yourself for once amongst equals.

Edited by Drewry, 29 August 2005 - 10:02 PM.

[AdmiralGT]

For one I have a great knowlege of European life, for one I live there for months at a time every so years and will be studying at a university there this summer.  My dad has spent a third of his life in france and equally the same with my mom.

If the UK is so pro Europe then why are they the only country that does not use the Euro?  Why France contributed millions to make it work for countries with poor economies like spain and italy.

The UK is not the only European country to not use the Euro. It is not even the only EU member not to use the Euro. Let's take a look at the facts shall we. Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain use the Euro.
Nations in the EU - Luxembourg, Ireland, Denmark, Austria, Belgium, Finland, the Netherlands, UK, Germany, Sweden, Italy, France, Spain, Slovenia, Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Portugal, Czech Republic, Hungary, Estonia, Slovakia, Lithuania, Poland and Latvia.
It does not take a genius to see that the 2nd list is larger than the first list, and does not include the UK as the only addition.
And let's not glory France for giving everything to the European Union shall we? As it stands, the UK is the 3rd largest contributor to the EU (ahead of France) while the Netherlands is the largest contributor per person. What have the French done for the EU? Well, they've brought about the CAP, the world's biggest cause of 3rd world debt. I know, let's prevent any poor person outside of the EU to ever be able to sell their products in the 2nd largest market in the world. Top Going France.

Where did you learn your thermodynamics from?  That is not the ONLY way efficiency is lost.  You talk to any engineering professor and you will know that friction is one of the MAJOR reasons engines cannot be 100% efficient.  And why can I not use that as an example?  One is bound to laws and another isnt?  I dont see your logic.

I learnt Thermodynamics from Proffesor Hannay, at the University of Bristol. He is a world leader in Thermodynamics, to the extent that he has his own constant named after him. Friction is the reason we do not have physical Carnot engines. It is not the reason we don't have 100% effecient engines, which is the laws of thermodynamics.

Becuase we have all seen what happens if you use governments outside of democracy (Iraq).  You loose 40,000 citizens in hostile takeover.  Democracy is being spread by much force the same way communism was.  And I have seen you argue in several topics about how bad communism is.  So I ask a simple question, if communism is so bad how come it was used for years across the globe and still is today.

Many nations devoloped Democracy through peaceful means. Imposing Democracy on nations will inevitably cause deaths, i'm not arguing that, but the nations that chose democracy, chose democracy for a reason.
OK, so communism has been used for years across the globe? So communism worked superbly well in the Soviet Union that it had to be replaced by Democracy, and it works so well in China (the largest communist nation in the world) that every day it moves closer to democracy forgetting the terribly atrocities that happen there and the almost distinct lack of civil liberties.

AdmiralGT you have a severe problem with other ideas outside of your own.  You will not accept anything new that you did not come up with yourself.  That is how I take you to be.

Amazing, you've deduced this from merely a few posts. I already said that I am a cynical person, but I do accept ideas "ouside of the box" if they warrant merit.

If you would stop acting so high and mighty like a pompus little brat then you would know that is what we are trying to achieve by brainstorming.

Yes, a little brat. However, it seems from our styles of writing, that I would appear to be older than you. Added to the fact you're about to attend university next year, I'd say that puts me about 2 years older than you. So I'm obviously little, unless that was an attempt at mocking my size, which technically is discrimination, and quite frankly should be looked down upon.

Great ideas were not born from everyone agreeing with them. I am merely pointing out the fallacies in your arguements. You have proven to me, on several occasions, that your knowledge is lacking in areas where you belive yourself to be knowledgeable.

[Drewry]

AdmiralGT, Im angry at the way you are acting. Once again with you mentionng age you are trying to make the rest of us below you and saying that you have superior knowlege.

As I have never seen you, so that could not have been a personal attack. If you took it as that then im sorry. When we are angry we say things that we dont mean, however we dont say the things we mean when we arent angry. Im not arguing that there wont be people that disagree. You are not the first person to ever disagree with me on this. However the people that do agree heavily outnumber those that dont.

Yes I you have allready said that you are a cynical person. I am the type that will look at a half glass of milk and say it is half full. Im guessing that you would say it is half empty. You are pointing out fallacies that are miniscule and that only distract from the focus of the topic.

Yes some countries did develope democracy through peaceful means. But very few countries did. The same is true with communism. Im not saying one is right, obviously as the whole foundation of my idea is a mixture of the two.

I do not have a degree in thermodynamics and do not plan to get one. However I dont see how arguing this has to do with the government? Trying to make me look stupid? That is a very bureaucratic way of 'defeating' your opponent.

Ok so what if there are other nations that dont support the Euro, the ones you listened are so tiny they hardly even matter. None of them are a major power like the UK. The UK military wise is probably the biggest power in Europe - if you so wish to classify them as europeans.

I personally feel the EU is a bad idea for Europe so dont say im giving France any glory. However I am very pro-french as I plan to move to france one day if the Unemployment rate goes down. I think the EU is a bad idea because it puts more politics into peoples live. My biggest problem with democracy is politics. I cannot stand people who openly lie to the people for power. Why put the lying prick in charge of the nation. What a genius idea, that one guy that half the people hate and half the people love, lets put him in power. That way its just like giving a big ,,||,, to the rest of the country.

Anyway, I said sorry to you and I do not want to carry this argument any further. This topic is about this government and ways it can be improved.

Edited by Drewry, 29 August 2005 - 10:46 PM.

[Tom]

Actually incorrect, socialism is the transition to communism, marx wrote that a communist country would survive without a government (therefore anarchy) and kept alive by the people, however that could never happen unless the whole world was communist, and it makes the system very vulnerable anyway.

As I said, in theory it's ruled by the people, but it could never work that way.

How do we know? Its never been achieved.

GT, Drewry relax guys.

The EU in my own view is just another excuse to unite world elites closer and take more power from the people and give it to the rich. The EU does not appease any of the peoples real issues. Well 38hour weeks is a big change i guess o_0 or whatever time they changed that too. It seems to me the EU is only there for the benefit of the market.

My biggest problem with democracy is politics. I cannot stand people who openly lie to the people for power. Why put the lying prick in charge of the nation. What a genius idea, that one guy that half the people hate and half the people love, lets put him in power

How do we even know the people are electing the government? How can you be sure? Afterall stalin said: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Its true, how do the people know they are really electing anyone, they don't. They are just told, Labour won this election, Bush won this election, sadly there is no effective and safe way to count votes as people and systems build by people are needed.

It seems to me democracy is too much about money. The tories or labour get the prime focus because of the money they get and sponsers they get. To me to fix democracy every party needs equal advertising rights and equal time on TV, otherwise how are the people going to see whos up for election? R.E.S.P.E.C.T IMO is the best party in the UK at this moment in time but they got one seat. I never even heard of them until after the election due to lack of funding for advertising. Seems our governments are up for sale, its just who can lie the best gets elected.

Power needs to be diluted, foreign policy needs to be totally split from the main government, power is too centralised and it means the few have too much power.

[AdmiralGT]

AdmiralGT, Im angry at the way you are acting.  Once again with you mentionng age you are trying to make the rest of us below you and saying that you have superior knowlege.

As I have never seen you, so that could not have been a personal attack.  If you took it as that then im sorry.  When we are angry we say things that we dont mean, however we dont say the things we mean when we arent angry.  Im not arguing that there wont be people that disagree.  You are not the first person to ever disagree with me on this.  However the people that do agree heavily outnumber those that dont.

You were the one who called me a little brat. How is that not a personal insult? Also, I am not trying to make a statement that I have superior knowledge, I am merely pointing out the inaccuracy in your statements. If you say something that is wrong, surely you want to know it's wrong?

Yes I you have allready said that you are a cynical person.  I am the type that will look at a half glass of milk and say it is half full.  Im guessing that you would say it is half empty.  You are pointing out fallacies that are miniscule and that only distract from the focus of the topic.

Just because I'm cynical, does not mean that I am pessimistic.

Yes some countries did develope democracy through peaceful means.  But very few countries did.  The same is true with communism.  Im not saying one is right, obviously as the whole foundation of my idea is a mixture of the two.

So why then are there so many more democracies than communist nations? If they both bring about the same amount of bloodshed, shouldn't we all be picking the marvellous communist regeime?

I do not have a degree in thermodynamics and do not plan to get one.  However I dont see how arguing this has to do with the government?  Trying to make me look stupid?  That is a very bureaucratic way of 'defeating' your opponent.

I am merely pointing out that 100% effecient engines are not possible due to laws of thermodynamics, not by Fricition as you say, which prevents the construction of a physical carnot engine.

Ok so what if there are other nations that dont support the Euro, the ones you listened are so tiny they hardly even matter.  None of them are a major power like the UK.  The UK military wise is probably the biggest power in Europe - if you so wish to classify them as europeans.

Sweden are quite important, and probably more so than most of the nations actually in the Euro.

I personally feel the EU is a bad idea for Europe so dont say im giving France any glory.  However I am very pro-french as I plan to move to france one day if the Unemployment rate goes down.  I think the EU is a bad idea because it puts more politics into peoples live.  My biggest problem with democracy is politics.  I cannot stand people who openly lie to the people for power.  Why put the lying prick in charge of the nation.  What a genius idea, that one guy that half the people hate and half the people love, lets put him in power.  That way its just like giving a big ,,||,, to the rest of the country.

OK, you want to move to France, but that doesn't mean it's the greatest power in the EU.

It seems to me democracy is too much about money. The tories or labour get the prime focus because of the money they get and sponsers they get. To me to fix democracy every party needs equal advertising rights and equal time on TV, otherwise how are the people going to see whos up for election? R.E.S.P.E.C.T IMO is the best party in the UK at this moment in time but they got one seat. I never even heard of them until after the election due to lack of funding for advertising. Seems our governments are up for sale, its just who can lie the best gets elected.

Power needs to be diluted, foreign policy needs to be totally split from the main government, power is too centralised and it means the few have too much power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

While I partly agree, there's no point giving the RESPECT party the same funding as Labour, Tory and Lib Dems. Why? Because the RESPECT party does not even stand in enough seats to be able to reach government. Prehaps a system of an amount per seat reached, so that in theory, every seat would receive the same amount of advertising funds. Added to the fact that RESPECT is run by George Galloway, I'm sure we all want more George Galloways who say that the terrorist attacks on London are deserved. Fabulous.

It seems to be, that everyone disagrees with the fact that as Hybrid says "Power is centralised and it means the few have too much power." yes, it's not an ideal situation, but it means things actually get done. If we all had the power to vote on every decision, then we'd never get anything done. Power has to be restricted to the few and we hope that those we give power too, take into account our views.
Also, it is these people's jobs to make these decisions. They are able to look through all the facts and make informed decisions. If we were asked about many of the issues in Parliament, I suspect a lot of us wouldn't know the advantages of either option. Added to the issue that the media would have a large influence over people's judgement. You could only make an unbiased decision if you saw only the facts, rather than a news bulletin.
There are times when I want to make my views heard, and if I want to do that, I write to my MP. But there are lots of times when I don't have an opinion on something, and I wouldn't want to have to spend my time making a decision about it. I'd probably just tick a random box, and what good is that to anyone?

[Tom]

While I partly agree, there's no point giving the RESPECT party the same funding as Labour, Tory and Lib Dems. Why? Because the RESPECT party does not even stand in enough seats to be able to reach government. Prehaps a system of an amount per seat reached, so that in theory, every seat would receive the same amount of advertising funds.

ALL PARTIES deserve the same time on tv and funding, not by how many seats they own. That is so the people can see whats to offer and actually have a parliament not dominated by Liberals, Labourites and Conservatives. That way more power to the people in a certain sense.

Added to the fact that RESPECT is run by George Galloway, I'm sure we all want more George Galloways who say that the terrorist attacks on London are deserved. Fabulous.

I'm not sure where you heard that but those words were twisted. He said the terrorist attacks were due to iraq, he never said they were deserved, but they were due to the war and he said it rightfully so.

It seems to be, that everyone disagrees with the fact that as Hybrid says "Power is centralised and it means the few have too much power." yes, it's not an ideal situation, but it means things actually get done. If we all had the power to vote on every decision, then we'd never get anything done. Power has to be restricted to the few and we hope that those we give power too, take into account our views.

Powers bullshit, its just control. We never got a choice whether we wanted to start a war or not, they just went ahead and did it for corporate interests.

Also, it is these people's jobs to make these decisions. They are able to look through all the facts and make informed decisions. If we were asked about many of the issues in Parliament, I suspect a lot of us wouldn't know the advantages of either option. Added to the issue that the media would have a large influence over people's judgement. You could only make an unbiased decision if you saw only the facts, rather than a news bulletin.

Of course, sadly we never hear the facts or the truth is hidden, meaning again we really do not know whats going on, have a lack of knowledge and due to that we are ignorant and have no power.

There are times when I want to make my views heard, and if I want to do that, I write to my MP. But there are lots of times when I don't have an opinion on something, and I wouldn't want to have to spend my time making a decision about it. I'd probably just tick a random box, and what good is that to anyone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same good it is as holding prisioners without trial because they *could* be terrorists.

[AdmiralGT]

But Hybrid, why do I need to listen to the adverts of RESPECT if they don't run for a seat in my area?

It's all well and good telling me of their policies, but if I can't vote for them what's the point? On your basis, anyone who stands in one seat, should get the same funding as the Conservaite, Labour or Lib Dem campaigns?

That means, for a £500 deposit, I've got the chance of having a multi-million pound campaign. Fantastic. But not only that, who's going to pay for all these campaigns? Currently the campaigns are run on donations, which is why it's so skewed. Who's going to finance my campaign for my seat? Taxpayers?

I heard an interview with George Galloway, and he pretty much said it was deserved. Prehaps he did not go as far as to say it directly, but he almost certainly meant it from my perspective.

[Tom]

Telling me the BBC can't give up a free hour of time for a debate on tv occassionally in the run up to an election.

You can still vote for RESPECT in the general, can you not?

And as for the interview, what do you expect? You go to war, there are going to be people pissed off who will attack people at home. Its war, people just make a big thing out of it because its at home not out on the "front."

[AdmiralGT]

I have no opportunity to vote for RESPECT. The don't stand in my constituency, so I cannot vote for them.

It's like the welsh and scottish parties, why do we want to hear their policies, when quite frankly none of them apply particularly much to us and we can't vote for them.

I agree more advertising should be given to lesser parties, but it should be proportional to the number of seats they stand in. This would mean everyone had the same advertising budget for a seat, which should generally mean a fair depiction of all parties.

[Kazyumi]

So what your saying is RESPECT (or any other lesser group) doesn't have any seats at the moment so why bother trying to getting them advertisement to a possible chance?

Well they deserve a fair chance, at the moment their just overshadowed by the big ones who do lots of advertisement, they need an equal chance, as they obviously have good ideas of their own that will never be heard.

The democracy should be more freed up instead of just 2 or 3 major parties. More parties should be granted chances.

Edit #3 -.-;;

Edited by Hooligan, 30 August 2005 - 03:29 PM.

[AdmiralGT]

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying you give them a budget for each seat they contest. So for example, you could give £1000 for each contested seat. We shouldn't give a lesser party the same budget for advertising as the 3 main ones because they don't contest enough seats to actually form a government. Anyone can stand as an independent in any seat and form their own political party. So just because someone paid £500 grants them the right to the same advertising budget as the main parties?