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

[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

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

**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.