Who from HxF would you back in a campaign for Government?

[Hecktix]

Which forum member would you back if they ran for Prime Minister and who would you like to see in their cabinet?

Give reasons why too please!

[Immenseman]

hiya, it's my job to create these sorta threads ;l

ermmm, i think i'd be the best prime minister on the forum. if not me then maybe someone else who (L) socialism. which eradicates half of the forum.

[Hecktix]

hiya, it's my job to create these sorta threads ;l

ermmm, i think i'd be the best prime minister on the forum. if not me then maybe someone else who (L) socialism. which eradicates half of the forum.

I know it's your job but I read something in Mint's thread and it got me thinking... I won't say what.

I think you or Sam would be good.

[Black_Apalachi]

It's hard to say because there's only a few to choose from in terms of what I know of their public views. Everyone thinks Dan is a big racist Nick Griffin wannabe but I think his ideas of controlling immigration and whatnot are pretty much vital for the country.

It would probably be easier to pick out who I wouldn't want running the country. For example I disagree with pretty much everything Jake likes or says so he probably wouldn't get my vote. I won't go any further than that though :P.

[Alkaz]

Ye probably Dan, I share most his recent views on the EU and immigration etc.

[Seatherny]

Who is Dan btw?

[Black_Apalachi]

Your bezzie, -:Undertaker:- :P

[Jordy]

Possibly Dan but some of his views seem too far-right for my liking. I'd say GommeInc, his views seem rather Consverative and realistic, and are also Euro-sceptic :)

[Seatherny]

Thought it was.

[Immenseman]

Dan has the worst political views ever, truth.

[Alkaz]

Personal opinion I guess.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ye probably Dan, I share most his recent views on the EU and immigration etc.

Thanks!!!


Your bezzie, -:Undertaker:- :P

4lyf.


Possibly Dan but some of his views seem too far-right for my liking. I'd say GommeInc, his views seem rather Consverative and realistic, and are also Euro-sceptic :)

I'd say my views on things such as criminal justice are far-right, but as i've said before;- if I gained the keys to number 10 i'd hold a referendum on all key issues such as the dealth penalty (basically anything which is not directly linked to national security or the economy). I'd say my methods are liberal-right but my views are more to the right.


Dan has the worst political views ever, truth.

If you believe that the individual is lower than the state, that the state has to be big and government has to be big, that scum is put on equal par when it commits crime with the victim and that the people are there to be milked and know little better than yourself/the elite - then I do have the worst political views ever.

If not, then we are on the same wave-length. ;)

[Immenseman]

Yeah but why would you on things like death penalty? There is a decent chance that people, who don't acknowledge the issue and consequences of mistaken identity etc will vote to bring the death penalty back. I want a strong leader who won't hold referendums to people please but will actually act on their intuition. Stability is arguably the key to a strong and therefore successful government, holding referendums on things left right and centre doesn't create stability. People will begin to question and it would just cause uproar.

[Seatherny]

Yeah but why would you on things like death penalty? There is a decent chance that people, who don't acknowledge the issue and consequences of mistaken identity etc will vote to bring the death penalty back. I want a strong leader who won't hold referendums to people please but will actually act on their intuition. Stability is arguably the key to a strong and therefore successful government, holding referendums on things left right and centre doesn't create stability. People will begin to question and it would just cause uproar.

Fully agreed. Referendums on everything would be idiotic.

[FlyingJesus]

Full list time, go go go!


**Garion for PM because he's easy to control and he says stupid things so everything that goes wrong would be his fault.

**Myself as Chancellor of the Exchequer for the same reasons really - I'd be the one really controlling things and wouldn't get nearly as much blame. Also when Garion eventually makes one mistake too many I could pull a Gordon Brown and take over properly for a bit.

**Secretary of State for Justice (and First Secretary of State) would be Sam because he does legal nonsense or something and is fairly adept at lying his way out of trouble.

**Bethie for Leader of the House of Commons because she'd be loud and make people do stuff by scaring them.

**Ryan (GommeStink) for SoS for Communities and Local Government because he's fairly intelligent for an Essex boy and apart from being friends with the wrong people generally does what he's told :P

**Smiddy as SoS for Defence because he's big and ginger and took over most of the world last year which is pretty good going.

**Dandertaker as SoS for Energy and Climate Change because he'd let us start using nuclear power which could be fun, and also it keeps him away from too much foreign policy while still letting him be a bit racist when he needs to be.

**Rosie for SoS for Health mostly for the irony.

**Chirs (Neversoft) as SoS for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs because he thinks he's foreign anyway.

**Marc as SoS for Transport because he likes boats and trains... a bit too much but oh well.

**Harry and Blake to share the positions of SoS for International Development and SoS for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because they're foreign and obviously nothing exists in Australia so rural is all they know.

**Ashton (Metric) as SoS for Business, Innovation and Skills because because he likes money. He can take Work and Pensions for a bit too but we'll dissolve that because it'll be a laugh.

**SoS for Culture, Media and Sport can be Dandy Rave (-Wolverine) because I think those things are literally the only things that happen in Canada.

**SoS for Children, Schools and Families... err... Jen I suppose because she is a child, went to school every so often and is starting to raise her own family now.

The other positions aren't important because they're just about the Welsh and that rubbish.

[le harry]

hey thats mean but i agree

[Bun]

defossssssssssss not undertaker. erm probs immenseman or alexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reppin labour.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah but why would you on things like death penalty? There is a decent chance that people, who don't acknowledge the issue and consequences of mistaken identity etc will vote to bring the death penalty back. I want a strong leader who won't hold referendums to people please but will actually act on their intuition. Stability is arguably the key to a strong and therefore successful government, holding referendums on things left right and centre doesn't create stability. People will begin to question and it would just cause uproar.

I'm afraid again this is a case of somebody treating the people like they are stupid. People know it can go wrong and has gone wrong, but as I have said before, it would only be used in the strongest cases. On the referendums issue, yes it does have stability. It means a policy is voted on via public opinion and not that of the ruling elite and leaves no doubt in peoples minds on the issue of government, what is voted for goes - simple as that. It cannot get more simple.

A core example if when Labour went back on its 2005 Manifesto pledge to hold a referendum and it shows even more with the little choice people have with the main three parties, I mean seriously, there is little difference between them at all now.


Fully agreed. Referendums on everything would be idiotic.

Oh because it would mean popular ideas such as death penalty and withdrawal from the European Union possibly taking place? - the left (as shown by this thread) could never stand the possibility of general opinion turning into policy.

[kk.]

Dan has the worst political views ever, truth.

truth.

and erm, im not too sure tbh, do you mean their views or who i think would get far because of their views?

[Immenseman]

I'm afraid again this is a case of somebody treating the people like they are stupid. People know it can go wrong and has gone wrong, but as I have said before, it would only be used in the strongest cases. On the referendums issue, yes it does have stability. It means a policy is voted on via public opinion and not that of the ruling elite and leaves no doubt in peoples minds on the issue of government, what is voted for goes - simple as that. It cannot get more simple.

Oh because it would mean popular ideas such as death penalty and withdrawal from the European Union possibly taking place? - the left (as shown by this thread) could never stand the possibility of general opinion turning into policy.

A core example if when Labour went back on its 2005 Manifesto pledge to hold a referendum and it shows even more with the little choice people have with the main three parties, I mean seriously, there is little difference between them at all now.

You're just totally contradicting yourself. How on Earth can you say that referendums leads to stability? That's obscene and alien. It's obvious that making rash decisions and giving complete power to the people just wouldn't work. It's like imagine the users of Habbox were allowed to decide in a vote who would be General Manager, it wouldn't be the right person for the job, it would be a popular individual. Or if there was a poll on here "Should HabboxLive stay open?" I reckon that would be a very close vote, as would capital punishment. HxL closing because of a majority wanting it to isn't beneficial for Habbox, like capital punishment isn't beneficial for this country. Referendums on such things won't improve a thing. Simple.

You'd be bottom of my list to vote from this forum, just below GommeInc and Robald :8

[Sharon]

I'd support Jakey. Find his political views amusing :rolleyes:

[-:Undertaker:-]

You're just totally contradicting yourself. How on Earth can you say that referendums leads to stability? That's obscene and alien. It's obvious that making rash decisions and giving complete power to the people just wouldn't work. It's like imagine the users of Habbox were allowed to decide in a vote who would be General Manager, it wouldn't be the right person for the job, it would be a popular individual. Or if there was a poll on here "Should HabboxLive stay open?" I reckon that would be a very close vote, as would capital punishment. HxL closing because of a majority wanting it to isn't beneficial for Habbox, like capital punishment isn't beneficial for this country. Referendums on such things won't improve a thing. Simple.

In that logic, General Elections and elections in general are a waste of time because the people only choose the popular vote, and the people do not have the brain capacity to make a decision (as was said around Europe with the Lisbon Treaty) - well heres a thought, they do - that is the essence of democracy anyway.

You are right in a way, referendums wouldn't improve life for the left, criminals and eurocrats because all of them would be idealogy abolished if referendums were to take place. The Guardian would be outraged that the public dare give the death penalty and harsher sentences the thumbs up, the criminals would be terrified because for the first time in many years it would mean that finally they are held to account and the eurocrats would be out of work overnight.

Bad for the left, good for the rest of us.

[Richie]

Divina1998 or habbic

[AgnesIO]

I would put my vote to Jin, since he seems to find time to do everything :P

Either that orr.. The guy that gives me da m0st thronezz

[Nixt]

I'd pretty much have Tom as PM as he would basically do what he wants (and what he wants is good) and take no **** from anyone which is good. Or GommeInc I think he's pretty intelligent, down to earth and would do a good job.

[Mentor]

In that logic, General Elections and elections in general are a waste of time because the people only choose the popular vote, and the people do not have the brain capacity to make a decision (as was said around Europe with the Lisbon Treaty) - well heres a thought, they do - that is the essence of democracy anyway.

I'm no so sure.

Say your in a room with 5 people, 4 are just your average joe's and 1 is leading professor of biology. Now your all really hungry and on the table is a selection of some unknown fruit.

The professor says its poisonous, but the other 4 guys just want to eat them?

According to you, those other guys are just as qualified to make the decision ?, so its 4v1, obviously the fruit must be fine to eat?

I personally would trust the guy who knows what he's talking about, rather than the majority simply because they are the majority.

Are you honestly saying you wouldn't. And yes this is exactly the same as what you described above with referendums. You asking a million people with no real interest in the wider issues who only know what the media has told them, and say a few 100 people who have a deep understanding of the issue its sociological impacts and much more, then expecting the intelligent answer to result?

There's a definite case for expert knowledge when makeing policical decisions, i'd rather leave decisions on matters i dont understand to people who do understand them. not just to whos got the bigger majority. I'd trust the advice of a doctor over the advice of a poll on a forum, if i were ill. Equally with often even more important matters such as foreign policy and say the death penalty, id rather leave that to the sociologists, economists and politicians. Not to a poll of the country, who dont even have the prerequisite of being smart enough to use a computer.




You are right in a way, referendums wouldn't improve life for the left, criminals and eurocrats because all of them would be idealogy abolished if referendums were to take place. The Guardian would be outraged that the public dare give the death penalty and harsher sentences the thumbs up, the criminals would be terrified because for the first time in many years it would mean that finally they are held to account and the eurocrats would be out of work overnight.

Bad for the left, good for the rest of us.
I'd say bad for everyone, other than the most short sighted and foolish of us. As explained above. I''d rather be ruled by a smart minority than a stupid majority.

[Tash.]

I don't really know many people well enough on here to know what their political stances are, although the ones who do broadcast theirs I certainly do not agree with. I don't think i've seen anyone with similar politics to me apart from SauravG (not that this will be a surprise to many of you).

[ItsDave]

FlyingJesus, GommeInc or Neversoft

They all seem to be pretty knowledgeable and I'm pretty sure they'd know what to do.

[Sammeth.]

I would go for FlyingJesus supported by me and Garion, as he would pretty much dictate what goes on in the country just like, cus of me and Garion he pretty much dictates what happens on the forum. I mean what.


Dan has the worst political views ever, truth.

Yeah that is pretty true.


Full list time, go go go!


**Garion for PM because he's easy to control and he says stupid things so everything that goes wrong would be his fault.

**Myself as Chancellor of the Exchequer for the same reasons really - I'd be the one really controlling things and wouldn't get nearly as much blame. Also when Garion eventually makes one mistake too many I could pull a Gordon Brown and take over properly for a bit.

**Secretary of State for Justice (and First Secretary of State) would be Sam because he does legal nonsense or something and is fairly adept at lying his way out of trouble.

**Bethie for Leader of the House of Commons because she'd be loud and make people do stuff by scaring them.

**Ryan (GommeStink) for SoS for Communities and Local Government because he's fairly intelligent for an Essex boy and apart from being friends with the wrong people generally does what he's told :P

**Smiddy as SoS for Defence because he's big and ginger and took over most of the world last year which is pretty good going.

**Dandertaker as SoS for Energy and Climate Change because he'd let us start using nuclear power which could be fun, and also it keeps him away from too much foreign policy while still letting him be a bit racist when he needs to be.

**Rosie for SoS for Health mostly for the irony.

**Chirs (Neversoft) as SoS for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs because he thinks he's foreign anyway.

**Marc as SoS for Transport because he likes boats and trains... a bit too much but oh well.

**Harry and Blake to share the positions of SoS for International Development and SoS for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs because they're foreign and obviously nothing exists in Australia so rural is all they know.

**Ashton (Metric) as SoS for Business, Innovation and Skills because because he likes money. He can take Work and Pensions for a bit too but we'll dissolve that because it'll be a laugh.

**SoS for Culture, Media and Sport can be Dandy Rave (-Wolverine) because I think those things are literally the only things that happen in Canada.

**SoS for Children, Schools and Families... err... Jen I suppose because she is a child, went to school every so often and is starting to raise her own family now.

The other positions aren't important because they're just about the Welsh and that rubbish.

Yeah this list is also good just because this is how parliament should be decided on irl.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm no so sure.

Say your in a room with 5 people, 4 are just your average joe's and 1 is leading professor of biology. Now your all really hungry and on the table is a selection of some unknown fruit.

The professor says its poisonous, but the other 4 guys just want to eat them?

According to you, those other guys are just as qualified to make the decision ?, so its 4v1, obviously the fruit must be fine to eat?

I personally would trust the guy who knows what he's talking about, rather than the majority simply because they are the majority.

Are you honestly saying you wouldn't. And yes this is exactly the same as what you described above with referendums. You asking a million people with no real interest in the wider issues who only know what the media has told them, and say a few 100 people who have a deep understanding of the issue its sociological impacts and much more, then expecting the intelligent answer to result?

There's a definite case for expert knowledge when makeing policical decisions, i'd rather leave decisions on matters i dont understand to people who do understand them. not just to whos got the bigger majority. I'd trust the advice of a doctor over the advice of a poll on a forum, if i were ill. Equally with often even more important matters such as foreign policy and say the death penalty, id rather leave that to the sociologists, economists and politicians. Not to a poll of the country, who dont even have the prerequisite of being smart enough to use a computer.

I'd say bad for everyone, other than the most short sighted and foolish of us. As explained above. I''d rather be ruled by a smart minority than a stupid majority.

The problem is that the minority who rule us are (as proven by expenses and various other decisions) total idiots. They have ran this country into the ground with debt, seem to think our money should be spent elsewhere (EU, the world) rather than the UK. You have basically just said that the public is too stupid to make its own decisions - we are not. Adolf Hitler, Mao, Stalin and the rest of them all knew more than the German, Chinese and Russian people, but did it make them right? - no.

These people who rule us have never done a days work in their life.

[alexxxxx]

You have basically just said that the public is too stupid to make its own decisions - we are not.

yeah, alot are. the sun is the uk's largest selling paper and half the country can't get 5 A-Cs at GCSE level.

sounds elitist but it's true.

[-:Undertaker:-]

yeah, alot are. the sun is the uk's largest selling paper and half the country can't get 5 A-Cs at GCSE level.

sounds elitist but it's true.

In that instance then, General Elections and all elections are pointless because a lot of people are too stupid to make the right choice. That is basically what you are saying.

[alexxxxx]

In that instance then, General Elections and all elections are pointless because a lot of people are too stupid to make the right choice. That is basically what you are saying.
no it is not what I am saying at all.

they are too stupid to make decisions on complex issues.

[Ardemax]

The other positions aren't important because they're just about the Welsh and that rubbish.

Guess im out of that one then :(

But yeah, anyone who talks sense, I'd vote for!

[Mentor]

The problem is that the minority who rule us are (as proven by expenses and various other decisions) total idiots. They have ran this country into the ground with debt, seem to think our money should be spent elsewhere (EU, the world) rather than the UK. You have basically just said that the public is too stupid to make its own decisions - we are not. Adolf Hitler, Mao, Stalin and the rest of them all knew more than the German, Chinese and Russian people, but did it make them right? - no.

These people who rule us have never done a days work in their life.
Actually most of them had pretty successful careers before going in to politics, but that aside, you prove my point. many of these people are in power, because idiots hold the majority vote. The successful politicians arnt the ones who think of solid policys that are good for the country long term, there the ones with the unrealistic and poorly thought out policys made because they appeal to idiots who are incapable of considering the long term.

Take the reacent drug debackle, you have david nutt a highly regarded expert who knows what he talking about, and a few ignorent politicians. David Nutt is who we should be listeneing to, but the politicians are who get to choose becuse they just say what people want to hear, rather than whats actually the truth.

The Hitler issue you brought up, he got voted in by people becuse he tricked them. If the voters were not stupid then he would never have come to power, the fact anyone with a bit of carisma can fool an entire population simply proves this point.

Think how dumb the average person is, half of people are dumber than that.

Anyway, you didnt answer my first question ether:

Say your in a room with 5 people, 4 are just your average joe's and 1 is leading professor of biology. Now your all really hungry and on the table is a selection of some unknown fruit.

The professor says its poisonous, but the other 4 guys just want to eat them?

According to you, those other guys are just as qualified to make the decision ?, so its 4v1, obviously the fruit must be fine to eat?

I personally would trust the guy who knows what he's talking about, rather than the majority simply because they are the majority.

Are you honestly saying you wouldn't.

[-:Undertaker:-]

no it is not what I am saying at all.

they are too stupid to make decisions on complex issues.

..and the mandate a government has to carry out isn't complex?


Actually most of them had pretty successful careers before going in to politics, but that aside, you prove my point. many of these people are in power, because idiots hold the majority vote. The successful politicians arnt the ones who think of solid policys that are good for the country long term, there the ones with the unrealistic and poorly thought out policys made because they appeal to idiots who are incapable of considering the long term.

One of the problems is the voting system itself.


Take the reacent drug debackle, you have david nutt a highly regarded expert who knows what he talking about, and a few ignorent politicians. David Nutt is who we should be listeneing to, but the politicians are who get to choose becuse they just say what people want to hear, rather than whats actually the truth.

I agree.


The Hitler issue you brought up, he got voted in by people becuse he tricked them. If the voters were not stupid then he would never have come to power, the fact anyone with a bit of carisma can fool an entire population simply proves this point.

..then the only solution following this logic would be to haver a dictatorship. It amazes me the way people can argue that elections for electing a government are fine, but referendums on single-issues are not. The only reason alexxx and so on do not want referendums is because the country would swing to the right overnight, death penalty would stand a good chance of coming back, the European Union would be finished before you could hold the vote and many other common sense issues would be implemented, much to the distate of the elitist left.


Anyway, you didnt answer my first question ether:

Do I trust this government or the public when it comes to deciding on the EU, death penalty and so on? - the public.

[PaulMacC]

e5 then he'd make all pines 1 cred.

[AgnesIO]

e5 then he'd make all pines 1 cred.

I love you sometimes. :D

[Black_Apalachi]

e5 then he'd make all pines 1 cred.

LMAOOOO and he'd make Sulake give out free credits and make them let only Habbox sell VIP :P.

[AgnesIO]

LMAOOOO and he'd make Sulake give out free credits and make them let only Habbox sell VIP :P.

And if he became PM back in 2007 he could have made a law, banning anyone posting news within 2 seconds of it bing release, except him.

[Black_Apalachi]

And if he became PM back in 2007 he could have made a law, banning anyone posting news within 2 seconds of it bing release, except him.

OMG if that was your 6000th post it was so worthy!!!!!!!! :P:P

[AgnesIO]

OMG if that was your 6000th post it was so worthy!!!!!!!! :P:P


LOL

Not sure if it was, if not must of been VERY close :P

[Mentor]

..then the only solution following this logic would be to haver a dictatorship. It amazes me the way people can argue that elections for electing a government are fine, but referendums on single-issues are not. The only reason alexxx and so on do not want referendums is because the country would swing to the right overnight, death penalty would stand a good chance of coming back, the European Union would be finished before you could hold the vote and many other common sense issues would be implemented, much to the distate of the elitist left.
I disagree, firstly rather than a dictatorship I'd suggest scrapping the lords and replacing it with something useful, in my opinion a body of respected researches/scientists/sociologists and economists - who gain there positions via merit of there academic achievements rather than through voting. These should then be given a proper amount of power. So that the opinions both the opinion of the country (reflected by the house of commons) and then reality's of the issue born from true and detailed understanding of them from the scientific house (which would be required to submit the details of all decisions made for peer review to ensure the academic integrity of the group)

By this method you could in theory balance the mass opinion against the facts and come to decisions which are beneficial to the country in the long run, without being swayed by idiotic claims made purely in a bid to get votes.

Equally, i think referendum should be an option, but again, this should override the elected portion (commons) since the elected portion is supposed to be representing the views of these voters anyway. but not the potential scientific portion who would still be able to review and reject and change the proposal before allowing it to be passed through (again with agreement from the voting public)

This way snap decisions, like death penalty would be weighed against facts such asthe death penalty costing more than imprisonment, has no noticeable effect in reducing crime, stops any chance of setting miscarriages of justice right and in many case's is getting off easier. I'd rather die painlessly than spent the entirety of the rest of my life in prison. I do believe though that sentencing lengths need to be rethought. You can get longer for hacking a computer system than you can for murdering a few kids which is pretty ****** up in my opinion.

Then again, i'm not a criminologist, i'd rather a few professors of the subject who know far more than i, were involved in the government (such as with my concept of a scientific body being given powers to veto and change legislation), and thus able to choose the better solution to such issues, that would reduce re offending and act as a better deterrent to offending to start with.


Do I trust this government or the public when it comes to deciding on the EU, death penalty and so on? - the public.
I trust nether, i trust actual experts on the subject with proper knowledge of the issue. Oddly enough though, this seems to be the one group not involved in the decision making process at all...

:)

[The Professor]

I'm no so sure.

Say your in a room with 5 people, 4 are just your average joe's and 1 is leading professor of biology. Now your all really hungry and on the table is a selection of some unknown fruit.

The professor says its poisonous, but the other 4 guys just want to eat them?

According to you, those other guys are just as qualified to make the decision ?, so its 4v1, obviously the fruit must be fine to eat?

I personally would trust the guy who knows what he's talking about, rather than the majority simply because they are the majority.

Are you honestly saying you wouldn't. And yes this is exactly the same as what you described above with referendums. You asking a million people with no real interest in the wider issues who only know what the media has told them, and say a few 100 people who have a deep understanding of the issue its sociological impacts and much more, then expecting the intelligent answer to result?

There's a definite case for expert knowledge when makeing policical decisions, i'd rather leave decisions on matters i dont understand to people who do understand them. not just to whos got the bigger majority. I'd trust the advice of a doctor over the advice of a poll on a forum, if i were ill. Equally with often even more important matters such as foreign policy and say the death penalty, id rather leave that to the sociologists, economists and politicians. Not to a poll of the country, who dont even have the prerequisite of being smart enough to use a computer.



I'd say bad for everyone, other than the most short sighted and foolish of us. As explained above. I''d rather be ruled by a smart minority than a stupid majority.

I said no such thing :(

No-one loves me :'(

[FlyingJesus]

tru dat

[The Professor]

h8 u loads :(