Quote from Intrepid :

And the majority of people in the UK being centre-left? Really?

Well it wasn't stated as a scientifically testable fact, but centre-left parties have been getting elected and then swinging to the right for quite a long time now :P Certainly polls and discussions here on this forum in the past have shown most of the Brits showing a left of centre, slightly anarchistic political disposition.

Out in the real world the only conservatives I meet are business owners or Baptists (or other Christian denomination, I live in Northamptonshire though so mostly Baptists) - which combined would be less than 25% of the population.

I realise that Conservatives gain votes from elsewhere, but I think that is because so many people think all politicians are about equally evil and swing their vote based upon how popular the current government is with the press.

So whilst I wouldn't say that my original statement was absolute fact, I do think there is a sizable proportion of the population who would fit that description - and my original point was that this demographic - despite its size - is not represented in politics, because everytime we vote people in who claim to represent us they swing to the right like a lead filing to a magnet.

Can anyone here say that they think, for example, Ed Milliband; David Cameron; Nick Clegg; Harriet Harman; Gideon Osborne; Boris Johnson; John Redwood or for god's sake Jacob Rees-Mogg are trustworthy and honest, and the best people to run the country?

Becky with regard to business owners - I see nothing wrong with being self-employed or employing other people (or I would see nothing wrong with it in the fairer society I would build). Yes a solution as off-hand as excluding millionaires from parliament is difficult in practice and arguably somewhat questionable in principle too, but unfortunately those people have too large an advantage over other potential candidates, in elections as in any other aspect of life.

It was just an off-the-cuff proposal to fix something that is obviously wrong, maybe there are better ways to do it. Step one in any case would be to attempt a true grass-roots campaign to provide at least one independent candidate in every constituency in 2015, a local who is trusted by his/her peers, and use the web and the media to see how much we can shrink the domination of the major parties, and hopefully provide better representation of women and minorities at the same time.

It's not a radical idea at all I know that, but now is obviously the best time in history to attempt it.

Quote from Becky Rose :

Well it wasn't stated as a scientifically testable fact, but centre-left parties have been getting elected and then swinging to the right for quite a long time now :P Certainly polls and discussions here on this forum in the past have shown most of the Brits showing a left of centre, slightly anarchistic political disposition.

Well of course centre-left parties are far more electable. They promise more government, more help, more stuff - that's a vote winner. A centre right party saying "less government, less help etc...", despite in my opinion being far more financially viable, is FAR less electable. It's far easier being the politician that can fix all, than being one who says you really should get on with it yourself.

it's no surprise when they actually get into government and realise what they are actually promising only produces more debt and more problems do they have to do a u-turn... Hollande in France is having to reconsider some of his misguided socialistic policies.

And I think most britains a pretty much solidly centre, you just don't see them on Twitter etc... The Daily Mail is hugely successful and the most successful news site on the planet right now... while the Guardian is hemorrhaging money like there's no tomorrow. It's all about where you look.

Quote from Intrepid :

The Daily Mail is hugely successful and the most successful news site on the planet right now...

This is entirely down to pictures of tits, not political opinions.

Quote from thisnameistaken :

When the 50p rate was introduced, the most right-wing tories argued that this would put the burden of raising over 25% of income tax on the richest 1% of the population, and declared that this was unfair.

Did those people actually pay over 25% of income tax revenue for that year?

From the BBC, though despite being utterly detestable right now (not like I didn't tell you lot ), I trust these figures are right

All that chart shows you is how little 50% of people in the UK make.

It's a chart showing what the proportion would be if those people all paid the tax they were supposed to pay. Did the top 1% actually pay 50% on all their income?

If they did, I will give you a Bentley.

That chart is great, it conveniently concentrates on salaries, thereby making it look like the rich are paying for our every whim and need.

How about a chart that shows the percentile contributions versus incomes of those spending time in the UK (seeing as you cannot use residency when considering the tax affairs of the super rich).

Currently our govt is National, ( centrist right ) act ( looney right ! ) Maori ( socialist left ) working with the greens and independents. Sounds wierd but actually works pretty well, with the odd blip !
++++++
Racer X..... I think you're problem is you only think of the right as being "looney"
Really? Just the right wing? Please.... The ONLY people that should be exempt in that little column are the independents. LOL and that being N.Z. are they indies because they're functionally illiterate????
Seriously, you come pretty close to hitting the nail on the head about the political parties. But don't be so narrow-minded. Just about any party from any spectrum is bought and paid for.
And from reading some of these posts, it should be pretty clear that politics has become a serious money game. Forget about agendas, constituencies, and even thinking of the long term effects of short term actions. How much money is in it for me? And will it cost me the election next term?

Yes, I shouldn't have discribed them as looney, and they are a major support party for the govt, but here's our PM's opinion last year.

Prime Minister John Key overnight distanced himself from the “extreme” views of Act and said leader Don Brash had “virtually no chance” of becoming Finance Minister or Deputy Prime Minister after the next election.

No NZ party is 'paid for' in the way that the US parties are, we have strict rules on how much can be spent, and we don't allow your 'super pac's' arrangements to get around the law.
"A registered party’s election expenses during the regulated period in a general election must not exceed $1,065,000 (including GST) plus $25,000 (including GST) per electorate contested by the party. It is a serious offence to spend more than this.
If a registered party does not contest the party vote its total election expenses cannot exceed $25,000 (including GST) for each electorate candidate nominated by the party.
The regulated period for the 2011 General Election will start on Friday 26 August 2011 and will end at the close of 25 November 2011 (the day before polling day).
The candidate election expenses regime does not apply to people who are list candidates only. Any spending by those candidates promoting the party is an election expense of the party and must be authorised by the party secretary.
These party limits are separate from the expense limits applying to electorate candidates."
http://www.elections.org.nz/ru ... penses-and-donations.html


No, our system isn't perfect, yes it has issues, but we've moved from a 2 party state to one where over a third of MP's are not associated with the two major parties.
That's certainly an improvement.

No NZ party is 'paid for' in the way that the US parties are, we have strict rules on how much can be spent, and we don't allow your 'super pac's' arrangements to get around the law.
a couple a years ago, I talked to a dude on skype that lives in a foreign country. We were talking about various stuff. THe subject of guns came up. His country outlawed them.
So I told him I could score one if I was there in less than a day. He said it was next to impossible. I said go look anyways. He got back to me a few minute...MINUTES of talking to people on the phone phone. His reply was a handgun for about $250 US.
Now. NOW If you think something like that could be accomplished in a little as few minutes in a country with gun restrictions, Then what makes you think that something like little restrictions like that impede any sort of influence peddling?
Hell, it probably helps cover it up more.

Quote from Racer Y :

No NZ party is 'paid for' in the way that the US parties are, we have strict rules on how much can be spent, and we don't allow your 'super pac's' arrangements to get around the law.
a couple a years ago, I talked to a dude on skype that lives in a foreign country. We were talking about various stuff. THe subject of guns came up. His country outlawed them.
So I told him I could score one if I was there in less than a day. He said it was next to impossible. I said go look anyways. He got back to me a few minute...MINUTES of talking to people on the phone phone. His reply was a handgun for about $250 US.
Now. NOW If you think something like that could be accomplished in a little as few minutes in a country with gun restrictions, Then what makes you think that something like little restrictions like that impede any sort of influence peddling?
Hell, it probably helps cover it up more.

We have gun restrictions too, no conceled handguns, and handguns, legally, are hard to get unless you shoot.

Rifle's, shotgun's, no problem, and we only licence owners, not weapons.
And that doesn't cover the black market........

Yes, people can be influenced, get under the counter kickbacks etc.
But, and this is the big difference between the US system and NZ, we have strict rules about electoral spending, in the US it's illegal for any non US citizen to put money into an election, what was Romney doing fundraising in Europe and particually Israel ? Even Obama refered to it in one of the debates, is he being prosecuted, ROFL !!!!!!

Why is the Megaupload case making our intelligence and police farce look stupid ?, because we have checks and balances built into our system.
The same as the US is supposed to have, it's in the constitution you used to have.

Yes, there is always the possibilty for corruption, but it's up to the peope to police it and not allow their rights to be taken away by rich f^#$.

It's up to the people to take a stand, how long before Texas seed's from the union I wonder ?

Quote from Racer X NZ :

We have gun restrictions too, no conceled handguns, and handguns, legally, are hard to get unless you shoot.

Rifle's, shotgun's, no problem, and we only licence owners, not weapons.
And that doesn't cover the black market........

Yes, people can be influenced, get under the counter kickbacks etc.
But, and this is the big difference between the US system and NZ, we have strict rules about electoral spending, in the US it's illegal for any non US citizen to put money into an election, what was Romney doing fundraising in Europe and particually Israel ? Even Obama refered to it in one of the debates, is he being prosecuted, ROFL !!!!!!

Why is the Megaupload case making our intelligence and police farce look stupid ?, because we have checks and balances built into our system.
The same as the US is supposed to have, it's in the constitution you used to have.

Yes, there is always the possibilty for corruption, but it's up to the peope to police it and not allow their rights to be taken away by rich f^#$.

It's up to the people to take a stand, how long before Texas seed's from the union I wonder ?

Israel isn't europe.... they like russia like to think they are but obviously they aren't geographically speaking at the least.

Megaupload was a **** up on the basis that MU would of made more jobs then the music industry has at this very moment in time, but they lads being " sacked " ( music rep's, label heads etc ) wouldn't enjoy being laid off by a guy who was at one stage the highest ranked MW player in the world. Kim is a smart bloke no question and yes he did make a fool of the american sytem but really its his money that saved his ass, not the **** up's by the guys who had... dirt on him...



as for gun laws they're the same as in most first world nations with some places having slightly lighter laws namely around scout/hunting rifles ( mostly optical restrictions like here )... nothing worse then living near a reasonably big city due to the fact you must justify your ownership, purchase a gun safe check the guns in on a regular enough basis etc... concidering how pre 1988 you could own select fire sten and the likes from wwII, alas the thrill is gone.


Don't worry about UK politics, irish are near enough the same except everything takes 25% longer to happen thus more lulz.

OK, not disagreeing as your making a lot of sense.

In the US it's a felony to accept money from non US citizens for an election. That makes Romney a felon. Will he ever face charges ? - yeah right !!!

Kim is busy making us look stupid, our farces of law and disorder were even stupid enough to sign the US a waiver saying they ( the US ) wouldn't be financially resposible for anything to do with this case.

Fortunately, our legal system does have this bizarre concept of the law, and more to the point, NZ law.

It'll be interesting to see how this play's out, I totally disagree with the way that Kim brought NZ citizenship, but, that's the law, so he's a NZ citizen, and afforded due process under it.

And he's certainly got a decent NZ fanbase who, shock, horror, tend to have a similar view of the US that I do.