Cameron isn't going to offer a PR referendum. Clegg should play hard-line. It's the best chance his party will ever have. Make the deal with Labour, get the referendum. Or go back to the polls. Being bullied into a powerless position in a coalition would be a waste of every card they have.
By Oakshott's standards I would be an arch-conservative. But I hardly ever feel compelled to vote for the right wing parties, because think they're only conservative in a limited way - usually in the social dimension. In terms of the way they manage money, they are quite radical, seeking to make huge sweeping changes based on ideology, and if they claim conservatism there, it's in an appeal to some time well before even my parents were born.
A conservative approach these days in countries like NZ is to follow the social-democracy line we've taken for more than 60 years, and to tinker with this institution and that, here and there, slowly building a better society. It is, in fact, the path we have followed.
So I'm often a little bemused by the claims of National and Tory supporters to being "conservative", whilst at the same time proposing huge changes to the tax regimes, gutting of public services etc. That just seems radical to me, more akin to the smash-the-state mentality of so many communists of yesteryear.
Under Oakshott's view, a great deal of which I agree with, I don't see that "conservatism" means "wants to go backwards". It just means "doesn't want to go forwards too fast". So I see total opposition to all social change, indeed a wish to return to former stupidity, to be not conservative, but reactionary and quite radical.
Oh, "basically" that's crap -- Labour has (and does) benefit enormously from FPP. Or have I missed that Labour's share of the popular vote was only six points more than the Libs, but Labour won almost five times as many seats?
I should be clearer. Labour benefits more than anyone else, bar the Tories. But they might very well benefit from PR more, by virtue of their closer position to the other major voting bloc. They might end up in power more often that way, or the Tories could move towards the center, which would be a win for Labour too.
That is the kind of reasoning I'd use to sell it over there anyway. If Labour figure it's better to be the second place than the first place in a coalition, then it wouldn't work, but I think there's at least a chance they could see the point. The Tories, OTOH stand to gain nothing at all from PR and to lose a lot. No point appealing to them at all, except perhaps with general moral arguments.
I agree that the smart move for LibDem is to agree to minority govt with their support, on the carefully negotiated proviso of a referendum on PR, very early on. If this doesn't eventuate, pull the pin on the government and go to the polls again. Then when the time comes they basically push the point to everyone but the Tories that if PR were the system, they would be part of the government right now. There would be a very good chance of Labour having hung onto power with these numbers.
Basically only the Tories benefit from FPP. Which is hardly surprising, considering they've been the party of power since the English first started acting like a democracy. It's long overdue that this class clique stops running a country that has long since lost any real pretensions of Empire. Same comment for the other class clique (workers) too.
Even though I lament yet another address-harvesting right-winger sending out this sort of clumsy unsolicited email, and even though I think the letter is mendacious, I wouldn't be comfortable with that politically.
It's probably not necessary anyway. If he really is spamming this shit to a purchased or harvested list of addresses, it's going to end up in honeypots, and get blocked automatically, on account of flood-detection, and various other triggers in the message. The "reply with 'not interested'" triggers a lot of heuristics, as does the "Click here to sign". The link through gives a perfect signature for the message, so it will easily be found in future messages, which will in turn be rapidly marked as spammy, and the address ranges he's sending from, and his domain, will end up tarred. It's just how it is.
Basically it's a foolish way to spread the word. Most of the political spam I've had to deal with over the years has been neo-Nazi, which says a lot. I just wanted people to know that they can do something about things they consider to be spam. I don't care to have the argument whether something is technically spam - that's for people to decide for themselves.
When people start seriously talking about political enemies rather than political opponents, and comparing - even humorously - their 'enemies' to pornographers this will never happen.
By that logic, it never has happened, then, because that's always been what people do. You're making your own little hyperbole, right?
Seriously, dude: I don't need to remind you of some of your own more colourful turns of phrase, do I?
I'm still trying to think about how Debbie could do dog-ass. Perhaps she goes all Edward Penishands about it.
But come on -- a rather cheesy rip of an already cheesy graphic that has been imitated and parodied endlessly over the last two year being worse than animal porn? Really?
Choose your own ordering and punctuation for the following 3 words:
After the Delicious debacle, I went to a place a couple of shops down called something like "The Cake Shop" (it certainly had the word cake in there). I asked if they had any cakes. They looked at me like I was crazy. I figured this was BS and I didn't need really need a cake after all, and decided instead to have a cup of tea. Lo and behold there was a place call "The Gypsy Tea Rooms" across the street. Did they serve tea? No. I guess I did feel genuinely gypped, though, maybe that was the joke.
A new low.
What are you on? I didn't know there was a pill for losing any sense for sarcasm. Too much courtroom detail?