even though he's massively successful, i love that jimmy carr is able to represent the everyman so well. he seems a lot more plugged in than most people in his shoes would be.
The trouble with politics is that people, including David Mitchell, seem to forget that there's this thing called compromise that's kind of vital. I actually love the concept of a coalition government. I mean, really, shouldn't all governments be coalitions? Shouldn't all sides work together anyway? No party ever gets 100% of what they promised or hoped for to happen, because not every single person agrees completely about anything. There must always be compromise, and it's not a bad thing!
@ammypam A choice between 'getting stuffed' and leaving the coalition and the country to a pure Tory government and 'getting stuffed' and trying to get a few scraps of fairness out of the inevitable rightwards change in funding. It's a crap position but I respect Hughes for going through that hell. I like to think of the coalition (for the Lib Dems) as 127 Hours, but dragged out to 5 years.
time was when the banker's professional organisation was called the Institute of Bankers, and its primary qualifiation was an Associateship. qualifying AIB was called -eithin the profession - 'another ignorant bastard', and the more recent activities of the banking profession have not tarnished THAT reputation, have they?
Look into the political system of Switzerland and the concept of concordance (and political balance, for that matter). While even that is not perfect (and I believe it's a loss for everybody that there has been a general slide to the right in all Swiss political parties but the Greens), there's no way only one party - or even a "coalition" - could ever attain power necessary to reign alone. There used to be 5 big parties on federal level, now there are 7, and there's no PM or president. Check it
In simple terms, they've always had a two party system. For many years they either had a Labor or a Tori government. When they were fed up with both of them they would vote for the lib-dems as a protest. Since they are now part of the coalition government, which is a first in British politics, people basically have no protest vote they can use and that's why now they have new parties like UKIP springing up, which is new to the Brits so now they are confused.
even though he's massively successful, i love that jimmy carr is able to represent the everyman so well. he seems a lot more plugged in than most people in his shoes would be.
The trouble with politics is that people, including David Mitchell, seem to forget that there's this thing called compromise that's kind of vital. I actually love the concept of a coalition government. I mean, really, shouldn't all governments be coalitions? Shouldn't all sides work together anyway? No party ever gets 100% of what they promised or hoped for to happen, because not every single person agrees completely about anything. There must always be compromise, and it's not a bad thing!
@ammypam A choice between 'getting stuffed' and leaving the coalition and the country to a pure Tory government and 'getting stuffed' and trying to get a few scraps of fairness out of the inevitable rightwards change in funding. It's a crap position but I respect Hughes for going through that hell. I like to think of the coalition (for the Lib Dems) as 127 Hours, but dragged out to 5 years.
Is that Rob Brydon as banksie? It does sound like him:)
time was when the banker's professional organisation was called the Institute of Bankers, and its primary qualifiation was an Associateship. qualifying AIB was called -eithin the profession - 'another ignorant bastard', and the more recent activities of the banking profession have not tarnished THAT reputation, have they?
Look into the political system of Switzerland and the concept of concordance (and political balance, for that matter). While even that is not perfect (and I believe it's a loss for everybody that there has been a general slide to the right in all Swiss political parties but the Greens), there's no way only one party - or even a "coalition" - could ever attain power necessary to reign alone. There used to be 5 big parties on federal level, now there are 7, and there's no PM or president. Check it
bankerpigs back to their old business like nothing has happend, wooo!
@KooTheDancer452 It sounded like his voice... but he was most assuredly not in the costume! ;)
*feels like eating pork tonight*
When David Mitchell is PM he'll sort it
can someone be a mate and explain English government to me? (I even said mate to be more English instead partner or whatever)
In simple terms, they've always had a two party system. For many years they either had a Labor or a Tori government. When they were fed up with both of them they would vote for the lib-dems as a protest. Since they are now part of the coalition government, which is a first in British politics, people basically have no protest vote they can use and that's why now they have new parties like UKIP springing up, which is new to the Brits so now they are confused.
J vR
that actually was quite helpful, so its kind of like the 2 party system in america?
i cant think of a worse system for democracy tbh
You could say that. That's probably why they are America's greatest ally. It takes one to know one.