Digital Economy bill passes on the UK

[Orogun01]

Basically websites will be block for alleged copyright infringement families will be disconnected from the internet if accused of sharing copyrighted files and have to pay for an appeal out of their own pocket.

 

Here is all the details:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/digital-economy-bill

Edited April 29, 2010 by Orogun01

[Meshugger]

Basically websites will be block for alleged copyright infringement families will be disconnected from the internet if accused of sharing copyrighted files and have to pay for an appeal out of their own pocket.

 

Here is all the details:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/digital-economy-bill

 

What the? That's completely against norms and laws of what a modern western society is based upon. Vote out those imbecilles and vote in people who will repeal that kind of trash.

[Walsingham]

I happen to think the LibDems are hollow vote chasers, but nonetheless Ihave to link to this story saying they will repeal the act.

[Orogun01]

I happen to think the LibDems are hollow vote chasers, but nonetheless Ihave to link to this story saying they will repeal the act.

But just in case I'm going to cherish all of your posts as if they were your last

Edited April 29, 2010 by Orogun01

[Humodour]

Basically websites will be block for alleged copyright infringement families will be disconnected from the internet if accused of sharing copyrighted files and have to pay for an appeal out of their own pocket.

 

Here is all the details:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/digital-economy-bill

 

Oh wow, every time I think the UK can't **** things up any further they go and surprise me.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Oh wow, every time I think the UK can't **** things up any further they go and surprise me.

It's a talent, and one we work hard to nurture.

 

Hopefully this will be a good test of David Cameron's commitment to personal freedom - assuming he becomes PM - and it'll be repealed or revised very soon.

[Walsingham]

Oh wow, every time I think the UK can't **** things up any further they go and surprise me.

It's a talent, and one we work hard to nurture.

 

Hopefully this will be a good test of David Cameron's commitment to personal freedom - assuming he becomes PM - and it'll be repealed or revised very soon.

 

I think we should get onto the Tories HQ and send a rocket up 'em on this point. Although, to be brutally honest I'd rather have a commitment that he's not going to roger the BBC.

[Humodour]

Oh wow, every time I think the UK can't **** things up any further they go and surprise me.

It's a talent, and one we work hard to nurture.

 

Hopefully this will be a good test of David Cameron's commitment to personal freedom - assuming he becomes PM - and it'll be repealed or revised very soon.

 

I think we should get onto the Tories HQ and send a rocket up 'em on this point. Although, to be brutally honest I'd rather have a commitment that he's not going to roger the BBC.

 

I don't get it - why do you immediately look to the Tories when you are opposed to them ideologically and know they're going to screw you over on a number of things you deem important (e.g. BBC)? The Lib Dems would seem a much stronger candidate for your vote, especially given their commitment to civil liberties and the economy. They're basically a socially conscious libertarian party, which would, in my mind, mesh well with your views.

 

They've also indicated that if it came down to it, they'd support the Tories over Labour in a hung parliament, so again, all good there.

 

And frankly I'd think you'd WANT a hung parliament because of the increased scrutiny it provides for all policy decisions. E.g. **** like this wouldn't pass if the UK had a hung parliament because it'd require support from either the Tories or the Lib Dems as well as the government (Labour). The Lib Dems certainly don't support it and the Tories say it was rushed and poorly thought out, without most abstaining.

 

"Of the 189 Aye votes, I make it 185 Labour and 4 Conservatives. Plus the two tellers were Labour.

 

Of the 47 Noe votes, I make it 23 Labour rebels, 16 Lib Dems, 5 Conservatives and 3 others (DUP, PC, Ind). Plus the two tellers were Lib Dem."

[Walsingham]

Fair points, Krez, and the answer is quite simple.

 

Irrespective of what one promises to do, you have to deliver. You can't turn a third division team into a first division team just by changing managers. The Lib Dems have never impressed me in terms of their shadow cabinet (I've met one, and friends have met others including Nick Clegg). I also know from first hand election work that Lib Dem supporters have virtually no idea what their party is intending to do, and it bothers me that such a party might get a measure of power with no actual mandate.

 

Conversely, while I regard most Tory voters as nutcases, I've met a couple of Tory cabinet ministers, and I have a friend who worked for Camerona few years ago. They said he was... well they were rather close mouthed. Which isn't good. But he has said explicitly that he believes in a caring society, and most importantly seems comitted to trying to clarify where we the people want the state to begin and end. Which I think is arguably the key issue for all modern British politics. We spend far too much time and money banning things, and setting up drives and quangos and czars for thinsg of dubious general interest, but manifest lobbying support.

 

Above all, I believe the best thing about the British system is thet we can vote for the person who is our MP not the party. I mean to do exactly that.

[213374U]

Lol. The funny thing is that Sarko tried to pull this same stunt in 2009, but the courts shot him down.

 

You know there's something seriously wrong when the French start teaching the Brits lessons on liberalism.

[Walsingham]

Lol. The funny thing is that Sarko tried to pull this same stunt in 2009, but the courts shot him down.

 

You know there's something seriously wrong when the French start teaching the Brits lessons on liberalism.

 

Ah, but the French have a functional political class. Whereas ours docilely accept a corrupt goon like Peter Mandelson back into politics despite being discredited multiple times. Th eman should be fired out of a cannon, not made Minister of Whatever the **** he Feels Like. Preferably into George Galloway.

[Humodour]

Indeed. Mandelson is an absolute retard.

[Walsingham]

Indeed. Mandelson is an absolute retard.

 

The day he got brought back in by Brown was the day it should have been apparent that Brown will do absolutely anything at all to stay clutching power. And I say that having voted for the S.O.B.

 

There are two deal breakers for me voting LibDem. Firstly their position on defence can be most charitably described as 'committed pacifist' or - from my philosphical standpoint - stark raving mad. They are fixated on a nuclear disarmament schtick from 1993 that by disarming we can somehow exert moral authority to disarm people like Iran and N Korea. They have also stated that they want an immediate return of troops from Afghanistan, and regard CURRENT operations as the 'end phase'. Which is just illogical, given the way that the dynamic at the moment is very much in flux. It's pure irresponsible pandering. In both cases they might just as well put their faith in a cupful of magic beans.

 

The second deal breaker is that they are insisting on a shift to proportional representation. There are many arguments against this, but the one most likely to sway the average person is that it takes away our ability to vote for an actual person. MPs become inescapably party machines, rather than only being party machines when they lack any moral or intellectual foundation. They argue, reasonably enough that they get a big percentage of the vote yet few MPs and say this isn't fair. I say it's not unfair. Any more than it's unfair that only one party gets to form government. Each MP is voted in in turn. If only a handful of LibDem MPs are liked by voters then buck up, don't try to fudge the rules!

 

I have very deep misgivings with all parties, but it's a choice between a morally and intellectually bankrupt group, a morally 'sound'*, but intellectualy dwarvish group, and a bunch of morally unsound but intellectually accomplished group.

 

 

*If by morally sound you mean it sounds good at dinner parties.

[Humodour]

UK's Labour government refuses to rule out blocking Wikileaks under this act.

 

Man I really really hate UK Labour. Actually come to think of it Australian Labour is similarly ****ed up but they face a hostile Senate so haven't been able to pass internet censorship here (and the Greens will hold control full balance of power in the Senate next election so fat chance of passing Internet censorship any time soon Rudd you bloody ****). I digress.

 

Meanwhile most of the Tories simply abstained rather than voting against it - what a great party of action and civil liberties they are.

[Humodour]

Indeed. Mandelson is an absolute retard.

 

The day he got brought back in by Brown was the day it should have been apparent that Brown will do absolutely anything at all to stay clutching power. And I say that having voted for the S.O.B.

 

There are two deal breakers for me voting LibDem. Firstly their position on defence can be most charitably described as 'committed pacifist' or - from my philosphical standpoint - stark raving mad. They are fixated on a nuclear disarmament schtick from 1993 that by disarming we can somehow exert moral authority to disarm people like Iran and N Korea. They have also stated that they want an immediate return of troops from Afghanistan, and regard CURRENT operations as the 'end phase'. Which is just illogical, given the way that the dynamic at the moment is very much in flux. It's pure irresponsible pandering. In both cases they might just as well put their faith in a cupful of magic beans.

 

The second deal breaker is that they are insisting on a shift to proportional representation. There are many arguments against this, but the one most likely to sway the average person is that it takes away our ability to vote for an actual person. MPs become inescapably party machines, rather than only being party machines when they lack any moral or intellectual foundation. They argue, reasonably enough that they get a big percentage of the vote yet few MPs and say this isn't fair. I say it's not unfair. Any more than it's unfair that only one party gets to form government. Each MP is voted in in turn. If only a handful of LibDem MPs are liked by voters then buck up, don't try to fudge the rules!

 

I have very deep misgivings with all parties, but it's a choice between a morally and intellectually bankrupt group, a morally 'sound'*, but intellectualy dwarvish group, and a bunch of morally unsound but intellectually accomplished group.

 

 

*If by morally sound you mean it sounds good at dinner parties.

 

The troop and nuke thing is fair dice.

 

But I strongly disagree with you on the proportional representation thing. Take a look at how Australia's parliament works - lower house (which forms government) has elected MPs via preferential voting while the Senate (house of review) has proprtional representation. It works really well.

 

Failing that, can't you at least get a working parliament like America (for all America's political system's flaws, they can at least claim to have fully democratically elected houses). You guys and Canada have such a messed up system.

 

I also have a very different view of how prop rep works. It's not that a handful of voters like Lib Dem, they have close to the same level of support as the other to main parties - at the very least it's a large amount. The problem is the voters are spread relatively evenly around the UK. Under proportional representation those people would get their say rather than being consistently ignored. It's not 'fudging' the rules.

 

You also say prop rep encourages parties rather than individuals. Which is ironic and confusing because it's easier for individuals and smaller parties to gain representation under prop rep. Prop rep eleminates the two party system. It disempowers party-line voting.

[Walsingham]

All sensible points, although I disagree.

 

1. In spite of the uunelected House of Lords being theoretically undemocratic, it was the Lords who fought tooth and nail to try and prevent detention without trial, and who usually pose the most probing questions on security and defence issues. Moreover, the proceedings in that house could not be more sane and reasonable. I urge you to watch it some time on television. I have no doubt that they behave this way because they are acutely conscious of their precarious status, but the fact is it still works.

 

2. Having both systems running in two separate houses sounds nice. But we seem to be unable to recruit sufficient quality MPs as it is. Having a second house, full of even worse individuals hardly bears thinking about.

 

3. A small group may well be able to form a party and get into power under prop rep, but I suggest it militates against ordinary people standing up for their actual community. People can actually run for MP and get votes by walking around, meeting people face to face with a limited budget.

 

4. Instead it would lead to parties like the BNP getting seats in the Commons by tapping into fringe views, rather than strong mainstream views held locally. Under the current system there's almost zero chance of them ever getting an MP.

 

5. The current system is extremely stable. We've not come close to civil war (excluding N Ireland) in 400 years! I would argue that it does so precisely because it returns MPs who have local roots, and tends to turn out governments with powerful enough majorities to get things done.

[Zoraptor]

The second deal breaker is that they are insisting on a shift to proportional representation. There are many arguments against this, but the one most likely to sway the average person is that it takes away our ability to vote for an actual person.

Depends on what PR system they advocate, really. With Single Transferable Vote the practical differences are that the results given are approximately proportional and that there are multiple MPs per electorate which should, arguably, increase competition in catering to local affairs.

 

MMP OTOH, does basically codifies the MP-Party-Slave relationship.

[Walsingham]

Would you mind explaining that again? I'm badly hungover.

[Humodour]

Single Transferable Vote was invented in Britain (known as Hare-Clark here after the Brit who invented it and the Aussie who implemented it) and is one of the fairest forms of voting around. It's preferential and proportional and also involves directly electing members. It would seem to be ideal for you, Wals. Hare-Clarke does not consider political affiliation - you vote for the candidate, not the party.

 

The upper houses of Australia's states and federal parliaments (i.e. the Senate) allow the voter to choose between directly voting for and preferencing candidates via Hare-Clark (known as 'below the line') or simply ticking a multi-member party list with a preference flow among candidates and political parties determined by the party itself (but distributed according to Hare-Clark). This is a combination of the two forms which Zoraptor mentioned above. Tasmania and the Capital Territory are the exceptions - they both use Hare-Clark only, and they do so to elect their governments, not to elect the house of review.

 

In the lower house, Australia uses preferential first-past-the-post (preferential plurality) voting, so even if you simply cannot bring yourself to ever consider any form of prop rep, this would seem to be the next most sane electoral reform to implement. This would prevent situations like in Canada, where 60% of the voters vote for left-leaning parties, yet the largest single party is the Tories with 40%, hence they form government. Will of the people my arse!

 

Anyway I'm tired so I've probably made mistakes in explaining this, or confused a concept or two.

 

Edit: Seems like STV was invented independently in the same century by some Dutch bloke. But nobody cares about the Dutch.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

Thanks for explaining.

 

I have a nutty idea: remove all the party affiliation notes from the ballot paper. That would confuse **** out of all the lazy ****s who can't be arsed to even know one thing about the party they think should run the country.

[Walsingham]

I've given it quite a bit of thought and reached a decision. If Gordon Brown wins the election then we're basically completely ****ed. Given that I have no formal obligation to stay in the country any more I am considering whether I should move to Canada or Australia. Both seem to be chock full of awesome people, and more sensible governments who understand the term 'social contract'.

[Raithe]

As was mentioned elsewhere... if Brown loses, just how much power will Mandelson end up with?

[Walsingham]

With Brown out of office no-one will need Mandelson enough to put up with him. Although of course he will still be a peer.

[SteveThaiBinh]

With Brown out of office no-one will need Mandelson enough to put up with him. Although of course he will still be a peer.

Unless you replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate, like we should have done half a century ago. It is true that the House of Lords has, for some years, been the most successful and effective part of our Parliamentary system, but that's not really saying a whole lot.

 

Thanks to Radio 4 I now hear the emperor's music from Star Wars every time I see Mandelson on TV.

[Oblarg]

I'll pay for all the music I listen to when it doesn't cost such a ridiculous amount of money. $10 for 40 minutes of music is a scam.