Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Tories would have won by 40 seats rather than the 12 they have now.
For Tories that means 37% share of the vote would now equate to 53.5% of the seats, compared to 50.9% at the moment (arguably much less democratic);
For Labour that means 30.4% of the vote would now equate to 34% of the seats, compared to 35.6% at the moment (arguably more democratic, but still not great);
For Lib Dems that means 7.9% of the vote would equate to 0.7% of the seats, compared to 1.2% at the moment (arguably much less democratic);
For Greens that means 3.8% of the vote would equate to 0% of the seats, compared to 0.15% of the seats (arguably much less democratic).
It doesn't report on UKIP.
So as it stands the only party that benefits from the review is the Conservative party and it is effectively weighting the balance of power much more in favour of them in the future.
Yes the population per area is more reasonable but they have obviously drawn the lines in a way to ensure that they can maximise Tory MPs and is hardly particularly independent.
If you think this is a farce I would highly recommend you respond to the consultation and although it's not really part of the consultation if you think PR is a good idea say it!
SHAEF was one of many formations commanded by the 'Combined Chiefs of Staff' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Chiefs_of_Staff comprising of 4 Americans and 4 Britons - it was a shared command from start to finish - involving more and more nations as the scope of the war broadened.
The CCS was a political structure to determine high level priorities as part of a joint working operation. They did not command any of the forces for the invasion of Europe (which to point out we are talking about) - they were all under the command of Eisenhower and as you want the 'facts' here you go:-
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anglo-American-Chain-of-Command-in-Western-Europe-June-1944-1673115 and to quote:-
"Eisenhower’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) had authority over all the branches (air, sea, and land) of the armed forces of all countries whose contribution was necessary to the success of Operation Overlord (the planned Normandy invasion). ". The only group he didn't have direct control over were the Free French forces.
I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post (the conversation appears to have moved on now anyway) and as far as i'm concerned you have to provide proof of what you claim (links to trustworthy sources minimum) before i'm going to take your word on something from hereon.
Ahhh , so the 'debate of the lost' . Most people resort to the 'I'm going to ignore you' when they are losing ground and can't find the evidence to back up there arguments and because it is simply easier
But I do agree the debate has moved on at least.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/09/13 19:56:57
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: This is nothing new. I remember Labour doing the same thing back in the days of New Labour.
feth the Tories though. Fething scumbags.
Yeah I agree. Both Labour and Tories are equally bad in this regards. Both benefit from having more MPs than by votes. I suppose the question is, how as the populace can we persuade them to actually not have such a biased voting system and bring in a system that fairly reflects the populace voting preferences?
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
We can't. We tried to push AV years ago and no one gave a damn. PR is the best, but as soon as anyone mentions it someone brings up the Nazis and how PR got them into power..
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Straight PR is simple to understand, but it needs to be implemented as part of an overall reformed system in order to preserve the direct representation principle of the current constituency based membership of the House of Commons.
There are various ways this could be done, but it won't be. Both New Labour and the Coalition flubbed their opportunities to get any genuine constitutional reform done. (One suspects this may be deliberate.)
The question of regional assemblies also needs to be addressed.
welshhoppo wrote: We can't. We tried to push AV years ago and no one gave a damn. PR is the best, but as soon as anyone mentions it someone brings up the Nazis and how PR got them into power..
Well, if the Houses of Parliament mysteriously burn down and the Queen decides to allow the handing over of emergency powers which give supreme control over the whole government to a single person with a history of racism and terrorist activity then the scenario may be similar.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The new boundaries are not in themselves politically motivated. The fix was done by choosing December 2015 as the cut off.
There is no guarantee that using the data from this summer would make things much better for Labour. My own (safe Tory) constituency also saw registered voters rocket in June/July.
A few weeks ago, when I assessed Cameron's legacy, I gave him a rating of 3/10.
On reflection, and in light of the committee's findings, that rating was overly generous!
I'm amending it to 2/10
Honest to God, Cameron's only saving grace seems to be that he's not Gordon Brown!
The incompetence displayed over the Libya debacle is embarrassing. It was like he was writing policy on the back of a beer mat!
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I don't think it's fair to say that it's all Cameron's fault. Sure, we helped get rid of Gaddafi, but is it our fault the Libyans can't organise a piss-up in a brewery? No. Also, the Guardian is a pretty loony left rag anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 10:25:08
Well, you say he was not Gordon Brown but he may actually be worse, in my opinion.
Brown was stung because he was unlucky enough to be Prime Minister at the time of a worldwide financial crash and let the Tories paint it as, basically, entirely Labours fault despite the fact that if the Tories had been in power they wouldn't have done anything differently to prevent it.
Cameron made all of his own mistakes himself. He enforced austerity on us, despite it going against the advice of many economists, made a complete balls up of our social security system to the extent that disabled people were being found fit to work months before they died due to their illness etc.
The only positive that came out of his tenure was gay marriage equality and that was not supported by the majority of the Conservative party (117 votes for, 127 against), relying on the support of Labour to pass, so calling it a win for the Conservatives would be a stretch.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
angelofvengeance wrote: I don't think it's fair to say that it's all Cameron's fault. Sure, we helped get rid of Gaddafi, but is it our fault the Libyans can't organise a piss-up in a brewery? No.
The report clearly says that after Gaddafi was toppled, Cameron abandoned ship. He took zero responsibility for post war reconstruction. He had no plan. By the sounds of it, he didn't even have a blank piece of A4 with 'Plan for Libya' written at the top.
It was amateur hour at 10 Downing street
Cameron was only ever a poor man's Tony Blair. Now that he has his lucrative career established doing speeches and executive director for some bank or arms company, he sails off into the sunset, leaving a mess behind him.
Even his constituents were only ever a stepping stone for David Cameron Plc.
That's his legacy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well, you say he was not Gordon Brown but he may actually be worse, in my opinion.
Brown was stung because he was unlucky enough to be Prime Minister at the time of a worldwide financial crash and let the Tories paint it as, basically, entirely Labours fault despite the fact that if the Tories had been in power they wouldn't have done anything differently to prevent it.
Cameron made all of his own mistakes himself. He enforced austerity on us, despite it going against the advice of many economists, made a complete balls up of our social security system to the extent that disabled people were being found fit to work months before they died due to their illness etc.
The only positive that came out of his tenure was gay marriage equality and that was not supported by the majority of the Conservative party (117 votes for, 127 against), relying on the support of Labour to pass, so calling it a win for the Conservatives would be a stretch.
In decades to come, just as we look upon the Victorians with bemusement at some of their ideas and policies, our descendants will wonder how we ever let people like Cameron, Clegg, and Brown within a hundred miles of the levers of power.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 10:31:54
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I think that's mainly because everyone has been alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we'd put ground forces in there, you can pretty much guarantee all the anti-war loonies would be out protesting it in a heartbeat. Heaven forbid we should want to topple a tyrant for the greater good. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan- they're all bloody difficult to fight in. Why should Cameron have to help sort out their mess?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well, you say he was not Gordon Brown but he may actually be worse, in my opinion.
Brown was stung because he was unlucky enough to be Prime Minister at the time of a worldwide financial crash and let the Tories paint it as, basically, entirely Labours fault despite the fact that if the Tories had been in power they wouldn't have done anything differently to prevent it......
I think you forget that Mr Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for an exceedingly long period prior to becoming PM. I think the real high point for his culpability was the massively weakening of redundancy as the financial crisis hit.
Unlucky no, collaborating to protect businesses from the worst while throwing British workers under the train just when they needed help. Pretty much the antithesis of what Labour was supposed to stand for that chap. Rightly reviled.
At least Blair committed force to the ground and made some attempt at setting up a working government afterwards.
Cameron basically wanted his cake and to eat it, too. He wanted to be a heroic leader helping the Libyan people overthrow their oppressors but at the same time be able to walk out with nothing tying him there. Like all such plans, it failed miserably.
Brown was definitely not traditional Labour but the Tories would have been absolutely no better, is my point. He was playing out of the Tory playbook for his tenure as chancellor but was then weak enough to let them get away with them painting it all as his fault, rather than the fault of the idiotic "de-regulate everything, low tax" ideology.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 10:50:44
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think that's mainly because everyone has been alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we'd put ground forces in there, you can pretty much guarantee all the anti-war loonies would be out protesting it in a heartbeat. Heaven forbid we should want to topple a tyrant for the greater good. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan- they're all bloody difficult to fight in. Why should Cameron have to help sort out their mess?
Because Cameron was one of the guilty men responsible for the mess. He had a duty to help with post war re-construction in Libya. Instead, he spent time swanning around Wimbledon!
A Town Called Malus wrote: Well, you say he was not Gordon Brown but he may actually be worse, in my opinion.
Brown was stung because he was unlucky enough to be Prime Minister at the time of a worldwide financial crash and let the Tories paint it as, basically, entirely Labours fault despite the fact that if the Tories had been in power they wouldn't have done anything differently to prevent it......
I think you forget that Mr Brown was Chancellor of the Exchequer for an exceedingly long period prior to becoming PM. I think the real high point for his culpability was the massively weakening of redundancy as the financial crisis hit.
Unlucky no, collaborating to protect businesses from the worst while throwing British workers under the train just when they needed help. Pretty much the antithesis of what Labour was supposed to stand for that chap. Rightly reviled.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 10:50:56
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
angelofvengeance wrote: I think that's mainly because everyone has been alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we'd put ground forces in there, you can pretty much guarantee all the anti-war loonies would be out protesting it in a heartbeat. Heaven forbid we should want to topple a tyrant for the greater good. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan- they're all bloody difficult to fight in. Why should Cameron have to help sort out their mess?
Other than causing it or as well as ?
anti-war loonies
with their foolish claims that there would be bad consequences if invaded/got involved in any of those countries.
Clearly they've been proven insane.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Why should he be prepared to sort out the mess in Libya? Because he contributed to it?
Libya was a gak heap long before Cameron came along.
@reds8n: Yes, anti-war loonies. Completely devoid of logic and no grasp of reality. We can help people if they want it, but Libya should be free to control its own destiny with minimal interference from us. If they make a dog's breakfast of it, that's their problem to sort out. Not ours.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 11:31:10
@reds8n: Yes, anti-war loonies. Completely devoid of logic and no grasp of reality..
They were right though, which kinda pisses all over your "argument".
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
angelofvengeance wrote: I think that's mainly because everyone has been alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we'd put ground forces in there, you can pretty much guarantee all the anti-war loonies would be out protesting it in a heartbeat. Heaven forbid we should want to topple a tyrant for the greater good. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan- they're all bloody difficult to fight in. Why should Cameron have to help sort out their mess?
*snicker* greater good *snicker*
You seriously think anybody went there for "greater good"? It's just resource grabbing. Just a robbery named otherwise even inventing evidence of non-existant weapons of mass destruction to politically sell the idea.
No country does anything for greater good. Big countries even less so. And army never.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think that's mainly because everyone has been alienated by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we'd put ground forces in there, you can pretty much guarantee all the anti-war loonies would be out protesting it in a heartbeat. Heaven forbid we should want to topple a tyrant for the greater good. Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan- they're all bloody difficult to fight in. Why should Cameron have to help sort out their mess?
*snicker* greater good *snicker*
You seriously think anybody went there for "greater good"? It's just resource grabbing. Just a robbery named otherwise even inventing evidence of non-existant weapons of mass destruction to politically sell the idea.
No country does anything for greater good. Big countries even less so. And army never.
Are you saying Gaddafi/Osama Bin Laden/Saddam Hussein weren't tyrants?
I'll concede on the WMDs since none were actually there, but removing those three is what I'd call "greater good".
.. well I'd have had a look at the god damn awful mess the invasion of Iraq caused there/in the middle east -- I'm leaving out the Afgan. action as, generally, I'm alright with us going in there and killing terrorists and I don't think one can make an serious argument about it really being a cohesive state at the time/for several decades -- realised that Libya -- whilst being run by a genuine Grace A top o' the range witch -- was effectively neutered at worst and otherwise pretty much onside with regards to the ongoing actions in the Middle east.
And then carried on with those policies that had forced Gaddafi to the negotiation table.
Flak I'd be willing to take -- much rather that than the carnage that has been unleashed since.
.................................... I'd then like totally bang loads of supermodels and go crazy in a bacchanalian revel which would -- oddly enough -- see me re-elected as Lord Protector by popular acclaim before proving history wrong -- again ! -- by not leaving politics as a failure, assuming people were willing to overlook the, regrettable , " Cocaine Strippers Avalanche" incident.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Unfortunately that's only your opinion, which doesn't count for much.
Libya is a basket case right now, with people being slaughtered on a daily basis, and Cameron is partly responsible for that.
You think it's acceptable to intervene in a foreign country, help to destroy it's infrastructure, and then just walk away?
David Cameron actually promised support to the Libyan people to help them rebuild during his speech to a crowd in Libya post Gaddafi's death, and then left without doing anything at all.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
angelofvengeance wrote: To me, he's done the right thing. Gave support to the anti-Gaddafi forces and left it at that. That's all we signed up to do at the end of the day.
He allowed the creation of a power vacuum which then facilitated the spread of ISIS. If he wanted to do his job properly and do the right thing then he should have had a concrete plan of what was going to happen after the fall of Gaddafi, drawn up with the leaders of the different rebel factions. A revolution can only succeed when there is a plan, a real plan, as to what will happen after the fighting is done. Otherwise you just end up with infighting and even more violence.
Cameron was a coward who cared more for his ratings than what effect his actions had on the people of Libya. If he really believed that Gaddafi was terrible and needed to be deposed, if he really cared abou the people of Libya, then he should have been willing to undertake that unpopular action and gotten more involved in order to ensure that a working government would come out of the other side of the civil war.
He did not.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Tories would have won by 40 seats rather than the 12 they have now.
For Tories that means 37% share of the vote would now equate to 53.5% of the seats, compared to 50.9% at the moment (arguably much less democratic);
For Labour that means 30.4% of the vote would now equate to 34% of the seats, compared to 35.6% at the moment (arguably more democratic, but still not great);
For Lib Dems that means 7.9% of the vote would equate to 0.7% of the seats, compared to 1.2% at the moment (arguably much less democratic);
For Greens that means 3.8% of the vote would equate to 0% of the seats, compared to 0.15% of the seats (arguably much less democratic).
It doesn't report on UKIP.
So as it stands the only party that benefits from the review is the Conservative party and it is effectively weighting the balance of power much more in favour of them in the future.
Yes the population per area is more reasonable but they have obviously drawn the lines in a way to ensure that they can maximise Tory MPs and is hardly particularly independent.
If you think this is a farce I would highly recommend you respond to the consultation and although it's not really part of the consultation if you think PR is a good idea say it!
SHAEF was one of many formations commanded by the 'Combined Chiefs of Staff' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Chiefs_of_Staff comprising of 4 Americans and 4 Britons - it was a shared command from start to finish - involving more and more nations as the scope of the war broadened.
The CCS was a political structure to determine high level priorities as part of a joint working operation. They did not command any of the forces for the invasion of Europe (which to point out we are talking about) - they were all under the command of Eisenhower and as you want the 'facts' here you go:-
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Anglo-American-Chain-of-Command-in-Western-Europe-June-1944-1673115 and to quote:-
"Eisenhower’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) had authority over all the branches (air, sea, and land) of the armed forces of all countries whose contribution was necessary to the success of Operation Overlord (the planned Normandy invasion). ". The only group he didn't have direct control over were the Free French forces.
I'm not going to bother responding to the rest of your post (the conversation appears to have moved on now anyway) and as far as i'm concerned you have to provide proof of what you claim (links to trustworthy sources minimum) before i'm going to take your word on something from hereon.
Ahhh , so the 'debate of the lost' . Most people resort to the 'I'm going to ignore you' when they are losing ground and can't find the evidence to back up there arguments and because it is simply easier
But I do agree the debate has moved on at least.
Fascinating link you provided there - care to elaborate on this image from it?
back on topic..
Didn't cameron cause a speed-bump in american military intervention by having a vote in parliment or was that a different country?
I can't find any articles about it (google only brings up recent stuff)
edit:trying to spoiler the picture, but it isn't playing ball..
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/09/14 13:41:41
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..
Legion: Dark Angels 
