Exactly.FarleShadow said:Whoa! Talk about a labour kid!Jonesy911 said:Under Gordon Brown I received E.M.A.(education maintenance allowance). For a poor family £30 a week is a big deal. Also, my mum was able to land a job teaching at a museum an pay for our bills.
When David Cameron came into power he cut funding to museums and my Mum lost her job, to add insult to injury he also fucked me out of my E.M.A. so now my only source of money is my Saturday job.
DAVID CAMERON IS A FUCKING EVIL BASTARD. HE STEALS FROM THE POOR AND GIVES TO THE RICH
EDIT: I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the best PM we've ever had, he's far from it. But god damn at least he wasn't a Nega-Robin Hood
Jonesy911, have you ever considered the purpose of EMA or, indeed, why these cuts are needed?
No. Because nobody who hates tories with a passion ever does. (Here's a hint: The reason the tories immediately start cutting everything is because LABOUR SPENDS ALL THE MONEY ON STUPID SHIT LIKE E.M.A. AND BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY). Everyone is still paying the same amount of tax, nobody is getting a tax break and gov. spending is getting cut. This is not 'Robbing the poor to feed the rich', this is 'Oh shit, we're out of money, cut everything and get hated becaues Labour's economics is 'Spend everyone elses' money until there isn't any left''
Use your damn brain for once.
I can actually see where you are coming from now. Perhaps I was a bit brash earlier.Calcium said:I'm going to make this my last post hopefully and give up. Let's clear some things up first.
Firstly before anything else, to suggest you were a Conservative was a bit below the belt. I regret it and apologise. Now onto your response...
You're taking the definition of Legitimacy to be Rightfulness. This doesn't make it any less subjective as far as I'm concerned. Also note that all three major parties were promising some kind of electoral reform, suggesting that even they realise there is something wrong with our electoral system. I'd be inclined to agree with this myself, and it was part of the reason I voted for the Lib Dems as I thought they would be most serious about electoral reform.Lethos said:In Political Science Legitimacy is defined simply as 'rightfulness'. The terminology used to describe it may change but the overall definition of it maintains relatively constant.
I do believe the Conservatives can form a legitimate government so I won't comment further on this paragraph. Although you do make an interesting point that I shall return to...Even if we were to take the idea that Legitimacy is subjective, I would argue that the overall population of the UK has the same definition as to what Legitimacy of government is. I would also argue that anyone who believes that the Conservatives can't legitimately form a government because 64% didn't vote for them is either a hypocrite or has never accepted any government in modern British history as legitimate.
It would be strange if we did agree seeing as neither of us has that opinion.Finally, even if we were to agree that the Conservatives cannot legitimately form a government, it could then be argued that they have the highest claim to legitimacy among all the parties as they received the most votes.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! This is not my stance. You are the one with the view that a coalition of Labour/Lib Dems (52% of vote) would be unacceptable compared with the current Conservative/Lib Dems coaltion (59% of vote). It was one of the reasons I quoted you in the first place. I don't agree that to say one majority is illegitimate whilst the other is legitimate. It is perhaps LESS legitimate but it is not unacceptable as you suggest.In essence, you can try and be as pedantic as you want by saying legitimacy is relative and 64% voted for another party, but the coalition government is accepted as legitimate by the overwhelming amount of people in the UK. Even if we were to take your stance that the coalition government is not legitimate they are still more legitimate than a Labour-Lib Dem coalition would be.
Now returning to that point: you said it would be hypocritical to say the Conservatives couldn't form a government because 64% didn't vote for them. I assume then that you should feel the same way for Labour were 71% didn't vote for them. It would seem both hypocritical and biased to say that the Conservatives can but Labour can't when in a coaltion with the Lib Dems they both have a majority government.
Also I would say my figures from this post come from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/
I would be interested in discussing further, but I've spent far too long on this topic in order to avoid my coursework. Damned Situation Calculus will be keeping me up most of the night now. Yes even the definition of legitimacy is more entertaining that Situation Calculus. =(
You could argue a more 'conservative' policy with the banks would have limited the damage of the global eco crisis (BA-dum-tish!)Mr Wednesday said:Are you blaming Labour for the global economic crisis?
And by "stupid stuff" do you mean vital public services.
Allthough, yes, I concede the need for cuts.
Yeah, that's a plan.Warboss Robgutz said:I despise them all, im all for a revolution, instating a horrible evil dictator who will presumable do something absolutely malicious and evil, defeating him in another revolution five years later, then enjoying unparalelled prosperity and growth for the next seven thousand years....pretty sure all of that is feasable and wont have any repercussions whatsoever...nope...none that i can think of...
at all...
no...
I find the judgement of the Lib Dems joining the coalition government unfair. Doing it was a good move. They didn't get the majority to get themselves in, but the Conservatives need some people and they approach the Lib Dems. Would you really turn down the chance for your party to have SOME kind of say in the government?UberaDpmn said:David Cameron won a near majority, forming a coalition with Nick Clegg of the Lib Dems *Cough*SELLOUTS*Cough*.
The whole thing was a farce, and it's not a week excuse. They really should not be in power. they got in with something like 34% of the vote, that's barley over a third. The ONLY reason that they formed a coalition with the Libs was because they could then legitimize there getting in power and they knew that the Libs wouldn't be able to put up too much of a fight so they could steam role there policy trough. Brown was by no means a perfect as a PM and in some cases down right stupid but under his leadership the country was getting better. The North/South divide was lessening and the quality of life for every one was getting better. Now Cameron and his 'Big Society' has blown that out of the water and the trends are actually reversing. The people that stand to gain the most out of this current situation are the top 1% of the population, and co-incidentally who are the vast majority of this top 1%...yes you guessed it it's the Torys. Now Labor was by no means whiter than white when it came to dodgy finances what with the whole cash for honers issue, but at least that was open to anyone who had the money regardless of who your daddy was. The Torys are out to serve them selves and screw everyone else, Labour was essentially the same however there self serving actually filtered down the chain a bit an provided some benefit to the common man.Lethos said:Ya know, I'm not the biggest Cameron fan in the world, but this is a really weak argument. No party managed to achieve a majority, but the Conservatives got the highest amount of votes. Labour managing to get into power despite losing against the Conservatives in the election would of been a serious blow to democracy.SckizoBoy said:The irony being... we didn't vote him in, we didn't vote anyone in. They just decided amongst themselves that 'hey, LibDems, your leader's pretty good looking, let's get a room.'this isnt my name said:But the UK voted cameron, and now they deserve it, maybe this will be a good lesson for them about voting tory.
'We' didn't 'vote' Cameron to do anything.
If David Cameron wanted to save money he could have cut it from several other things such as the ministry of defence or her majesty's treasury which are both ridiculously bloated. I'm not an idiot, I know he's not just cutting shit for no reason.FarleShadow said:Whoa! Talk about a labour kid!Jonesy911 said:Under Gordon Brown I received E.M.A.(education maintenance allowance). For a poor family £30 a week is a big deal. Also, my mum was able to land a job teaching at a museum an pay for our bills.
When David Cameron came into power he cut funding to museums and my Mum lost her job, to add insult to injury he also fucked me out of my E.M.A. so now my only source of money is my Saturday job.
DAVID CAMERON IS A FUCKING EVIL BASTARD. HE STEALS FROM THE POOR AND GIVES TO THE RICH
EDIT: I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the best PM we've ever had, he's far from it. But god damn at least he wasn't a Nega-Robin Hood
Jonesy911, have you ever considered the purpose of EMA or, indeed, why these cuts are needed?
No. Because nobody who hates tories with a passion ever does. (Here's a hint: The reason the tories immediately start cutting everything is because LABOUR SPENDS ALL THE MONEY ON STUPID SHIT LIKE E.M.A. AND BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY). Everyone is still paying the same amount of tax, nobody is getting a tax break and gov. spending is getting cut. This is not 'Robbing the poor to feed the rich', this is 'Oh shit, we're out of money, cut everything and get hated becaues Labour's economics is 'Spend everyone elses' money until there isn't any left''
Use your damn brain for once.
lol!Jonesy911 said:If David Cameron wanted to save money he could have cut it from several other things such as the ministry of defence or her majesty's treasury which are both ridiculously bloated. I'm not an idiot, I know he's not just cutting shit for no reason.
Simply put, my family should not have to be forced to live of our grandparents generosity because the government destroyed all of our sources of income. There's cutting costs and then there's fucking over the working class to keep the middle more comfortable.
Edit: Also, try not to be so condescending to people when you have a difference of opinion. It generally makes you look like a massive ponce.
One other thing regarding the highlighted phrase (I agree with what you say). Withdrawing benefits is not "robbing the poor", because "robbing" implies that money is being taken away, which is not true. Instead of taking money, the government are simply not giving money which the recipients have no reasonable claim to anyway. And nothing is being given to the rich, either.FarleShadow said:Whoa! Talk about a labour kid!Jonesy911 said:Under Gordon Brown I received E.M.A.(education maintenance allowance). For a poor family £30 a week is a big deal. Also, my mum was able to land a job teaching at a museum an pay for our bills.
When David Cameron came into power he cut funding to museums and my Mum lost her job, to add insult to injury he also fucked me out of my E.M.A. so now my only source of money is my Saturday job.
DAVID CAMERON IS A FUCKING EVIL BASTARD. HE STEALS FROM THE POOR AND GIVES TO THE RICH
EDIT: I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the best PM we've ever had, he's far from it. But god damn at least he wasn't a Nega-Robin Hood
Jonesy911, have you ever considered the purpose of EMA or, indeed, why these cuts are needed?
No. Because nobody who hates tories with a passion ever does. (Here's a hint: The reason the tories immediately start cutting everything is because LABOUR SPENDS ALL THE MONEY ON STUPID SHIT LIKE E.M.A. AND BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY). Everyone is still paying the same amount of tax, nobody is getting a tax break and gov. spending is getting cut. This is not 'Robbing the poor to feed the rich', this is 'Oh shit, we're out of money, cut everything and get hated becaues Labour's economics is 'Spend everyone elses' money until there isn't any left''
Use your damn brain for once.
You can call me out on something if I'm being retarded, no problem. Just don't tell me to "use my brain for once". Also Museums deserve to be well funded by the government, they should not have cut money to those.FarleShadow said:lol!Jonesy911 said:If David Cameron wanted to save money he could have cut it from several other things such as the ministry of defence or her majesty's treasury which are both ridiculously bloated. I'm not an idiot, I know he's not just cutting shit for no reason.
Simply put, my family should not have to be forced to live of our grandparents generosity because the government destroyed all of our sources of income. There's cutting costs and then there's fucking over the working class to keep the middle more comfortable.
Edit: Also, try not to be so condescending to people when you have a difference of opinion. It generally makes you look like a massive ponce.
Someone obviously isn't in touch with middle class people, because, far from being comfortable, they're lumped with the majority of the burden. Tax increase? Middle classes lose out. Benefits? Middle classes are 'too wealthy' to recieve the 'working classes' benefits, so lose out.
Could you cut the MoD? Yes, they have. HM Treasury? Probably. But the Tories have reduced everything, including killing off Labour schemes like the ridiculous EMA. Perhaps you should consider that the government didn't kill off your source of income, its just getting rid of shit that should never have been in the first place.
So its ok for you to call all tories evil bastards, but not alright for me to call you out on it? lol!
What I meant was that while people like me at the bottom of the ladder are getting fucked over due to the cutting of funding to our workplaces, the rich are getting away with VERY lenient taxes. Why not raise taxes on the rich?Valkyrie101 said:One other thing regarding the highlighted phrase (I agree with what you say). Withdrawing benefits is not "robbing the poor", because "robbing" implies that money is being taken away, which is not true. Instead of taking money, the government are simply not giving money which the recipients have no reasonable claim to anyway. And nothing is being given to the rich, either.FarleShadow said:Whoa! Talk about a labour kid!Jonesy911 said:Under Gordon Brown I received E.M.A.(education maintenance allowance). For a poor family £30 a week is a big deal. Also, my mum was able to land a job teaching at a museum an pay for our bills.
When David Cameron came into power he cut funding to museums and my Mum lost her job, to add insult to injury he also fucked me out of my E.M.A. so now my only source of money is my Saturday job.
DAVID CAMERON IS A FUCKING EVIL BASTARD. HE STEALS FROM THE POOR AND GIVES TO THE RICH
EDIT: I'm not saying Gordon Brown is the best PM we've ever had, he's far from it. But god damn at least he wasn't a Nega-Robin Hood
Jonesy911, have you ever considered the purpose of EMA or, indeed, why these cuts are needed?
No. Because nobody who hates tories with a passion ever does. (Here's a hint: The reason the tories immediately start cutting everything is because LABOUR SPENDS ALL THE MONEY ON STUPID SHIT LIKE E.M.A. AND BANKRUPTED THE COUNTRY). Everyone is still paying the same amount of tax, nobody is getting a tax break and gov. spending is getting cut. This is not 'Robbing the poor to feed the rich', this is 'Oh shit, we're out of money, cut everything and get hated becaues Labour's economics is 'Spend everyone elses' money until there isn't any left''
Use your damn brain for once.