[Keckers]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
worth going to see then? I'd heard it was decent but didn't really like some of the other superhero movies so decided not to bother going to see it yet

Almost certainly worth seeing in a cinema. It's definitely one of the better superhero movies out there, still not sure whether it's better than the Dark Knight though.

[thunder_chunky]

I'm on a new diet plan, what do you think?

Spoiler:

Show

[Thunder and Jazz]

Nice. I'm on a seafood diet myself.

/old joke

...

I just handed in my dissertation. Awesome.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Keckers)
Almost certainly worth seeing in a cinema. It's definitely one of the better superhero movies out there, still not sure whether it's better than the Dark Knight though.

Dark Knight was one of the few superhero movies I enjoyed. Batman Begins wasn't bad either, might have to go see it then...

[Morgsie]

Is the Avengers Movie good?
I watched Captain America last week.

The Dark Knight Rises is released 2 days after my birthday.

[Rakas21]

Judging by the reviews of the press and people that have watched it, it is apparently brilliant.

It is expected to have grossed over $300m by the end of the week.

[Matthew_Lowson]

Anyone got mayoralty referendums tomorrow?

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
Anyone got mayoralty referendums tomorrow?

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire

I might be wrong, but im pretty sure we don't have one in Hull. I know nottingham's got one

[Thunder and Jazz]

Yeah I'm heading to the Avengers tonight. I've spent months predicting it to be ****, hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

[Rakas21]

Local election (2 since i can vote at home as well) and mayoral referendum for me.

Voting Tory, Tory, Yes!

[JPKC]

I'll be casting my first ballot for Labour. Also will vote on whether Manc should get a mayor, funnily enough I haven't decided and so will likely be making a judgement while hungry and half-asleep at 8am tomorrow. That's the kind of decision making that makes democracies so competent.

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
Yeah I'm heading to the Avengers tonight. I've spent months predicting it to be ****, hopefully I'll be proven wrong.

I'm not going anywhere near a cinema until Prometheus. You should report back though.

[TopHat]

A Response: The Case Against Elected Mayors

On the third of May, voters will go to the polls in ten of England's cities to decide whether they want to have a directly elected mayor. Jonathan Trollope has presented a compelling argument as to why you as a voter should say Yes; however, I feel he has failed to properly analyse why people care about democracy, particularly at a local scale. So, in response, I shall be making the argument for why mayors are simply a convenient façade that distracts from the real issues of local government, whilst simultaneously wounding the range and variety of our democracy.

The first claim Trollope makes is to repeat Simon Jenkins' argument that the adoption of elected mayors will help banish the shadowy civic mafia of local councils. This shows a misunderstanding of why local councils are a “shadowy civic mafia”. The best argument Jenkins and Trollope can provide is that the fact there is a single figure, the mayor, rather than a composite body, the council, means voters can more easily identify a single responsible figure. This makes it easier to participate, and in doing so causes higher turnout. The problem with this assumption is that the reality doesn't match the fact. Turnout for the Bedford council elections in 2000 (before the creation of the elected Bedford mayor) averaged 35.72% across all the wards1. The October 2009 mayoral election saw turnout of 31%2 3. Turnout for the 2002 Lewisham council elections averaged 25.6% across all wards4. The 2006 Lewisham mayoral election saw a turnout of 29.4%5. These figures are not unique, and are broadly replicated by most councils which now have an elected mayor. The one consistent figure is that the presence of a mayor makes no significant difference to likelihood to vote (with one exception, the Mayor of London; this will be touched upon shortly). As such, it's clearly not the fact that there are many councillors which is putting off potential voters – all the introduction of mayors will do is create a shadowy civic godfather to head the mafia we have already created.

The following argument is that mayoral politics will banish the apparent chaos of council politics, replacing confusion with order. Trollope points out the disarray of Bristol's leadership, with council leadership having changed six times in the last seven years. Mayors, once elected, serve the duration of their term bar resignations, and as such bring stability. Here, I feel Trollope has correctly identified a problem, but his solution is somewhat lacking. It introduces an entirely new problem – the fact that mayoral politics destroys variety and change. Of the 11 extant elected mayor seats (excluding London) which have seen multiple elections, only a single one (North Tyneside) changed hands between two of the major parties6 – and this was only because the incumbent Conservative mayor was arrested on child pornography charges. Rather than creating stability, mayoral politics creates stagnation. It swings too far in the other direction and creates fiefdoms for parties to rule as their own. There is no incentive for mayors to aid economic growth and encouraging businesses, as Trollope talks of. He then talks of mayors creating a national and international presence. I find this is very much untrue. How many mayors, aside from the Mayor of London, can you name? How many mayors, aside from the Mayor of London, do you think the average British voter can name? I should imagine the number is particularly small. Never mind the lofty heights of an “international” presence, mayors struggle to even manage a national presence.

Trollope's conclusion states that this allows people a greater say in how their local area is run, and that it will act as a panacea to the problems of modern democracy. I see them as not only failing to be a panacea, but acting as an active block to democracy. If you start electing individuals, rather than broad groups, people start focusing on the aspects of that individual, which is much harder to do as a group. This causes personality politics to develop, something which is very damaging for democracy. Instead of evaluating the differences between the policies two parties present, people evaluate the differences between the personalities two people represent. This takes focus from the real issue, which is the policies they suggest, and creates vacuous, soundbite dominated politics at its very worst.

As one final rebuttal, I would point towards the experience of Doncaster. In 2009, following a record low turnout of 18%, Peter Davies of the English Democrats was elected, representing 22% of the first choice votes – all in all, around 4% of the electorate contributed to his mandate7. He then preceded to run the mayoralty so badly that Westminster was required to send civil servants in to administer the events, and refused to resign despite a Vote of No Confidence. This could never happen under the council format, as the council leader requires majority support at all times. The events have been so farcical that Doncaster is rapidly moving the opposite way to the way in which Trollope would take us – this year, it shall have a referendum on whether or not to remove the mayor8.

Now, it would be rather rude of me to criticize Trollope's well-written and persuasive arguments without offering any of my own. To do so, I would like to take a look at the problem mayoral politics is meant to solve – the decline of local government. As shown above, the introduction of elected mayors is not a solution – so what is? How can we make people care about local government? The sweet and simple answer is give them something to care about. Councillors have very little power. In a process that arguably started in the 1980s under the Thatcher administration and continued throughout the Major, Brown and Blair administrations, and still continues to this day, Westminster has slowly been removing powers from councils and returning them to central government. The reason turnout is so low is because people don't care – what powers do councils actually have to influence their lives? Very little. It is a knife and fork question.

If we want to improve local government turnout, we need to return powers to councils, and allow people greater power over how they run their communities. This handily addresses many of the key issues highlighted by Trollope. The shadowy civic mafia will be forced into the blinding daylight as people become more actively involved. If people see a real chance of improving their lives, rather than a tawdry assortment of powers which cannot influence their lives, then they will find out who their prospective councillors are, and contribute to the electoral process more. This same process brings about stability, without the stagnation that was the flaw of Trollope's suggestion. If council leaders enter the public eye more often due to their increased status, then people will be more aware of poor leadership and chicanery at the helm. As such, they will punish councillors who do so. This process will increase stability. At the same time, it doesn't allow events like we saw in Doncaster, where a mayor who has lost a Vote of No Confidence and run his area into the ground to the point central government is required to intervene can stay in office.

This allows me to the final point of my argument. You'll notice I did not touch Trollope's point on the Mayor of London. While I disagree with the position of London Mayor on the grounds of personality politics, I do acknowledge it has been excellent for inspiring enthusiasm amongst voters, and in shaping London for the better. However, this is not due to the position of Mayor itself, but because, compared to the average council leaders, the Mayor of London has a wide range of extensive powers which allow him or her to do a great deal for their constituents. This is the clear solution for local democracy.

If you want to see flourishing local politics and self-determinant communities, this is your chance. Mayors provide an extra level of bureaucracy, cause political stagnation, create personality politics, whilst having no discernible affect on turnout and commanding no national or international presence. In contrast, increased powers to councils gives people greater powers to shape their communities, creates the powerful local politics that generated high turnout in the past, and would force a more adult politics on a local scale. Reject the snake oil of mayoral politics, and push for decentralisation of government – power to the people.

An article I wrote in response to Jonathan Trollope of the New Political Centre, on the subject of mayors.

[JPKC]

(Original post by TopHat)
An article I wrote in response to Jonathan Trollope of the New Political Centre, on the subject of mayors.

Well written.

With the first point, I actually sympathise more with Jenkins argument which I feel is more applicable to Manchester. The council here is shambolic and completely unaccountable because no party has ever come close to challenging Labour incumbents - the leadership is sleazy and seriously poor, acting as if they couldn't care less what effect their policies have. Richard Leese is the definition of feckless. There's also a rot in the local party. Being an active member, I see these hopeless young bottom-of-the-barrel candidates (people who can barely string sentences together) being selected for wards and duly elected by the stock Labour vote (on ridiculously low turnout). The issue of turnout is a challenge to most elections in the UK, bar the generals. I think it could be sorted by making voting compulsory with a "none of the above option", and moving elections to weekends. Also by pairing them up with other important ballots.

Having a single, able, executive figure would not be a panacea by any means, but having an anti-establishment attitude to the way things currently are means I'll probably vote 'yes'. It's the same dilemma as with AV - I don't much like the proposal, but any change is better than the status quo remaining.

[TopHat]

(Original post by JPKC)
Well written.

With the first point, I actually sympathise more with Jenkins argument which I feel is more applicable to Manchester. The council here is shambolic and completely unaccountable because no party has ever come close to challenging Labour incumbents - the leadership is sleazy and seriously poor, acting as if they couldn't care less what effect their policies have. Richard Leese is the definition of feckless. There's also a rot in the local party. Being an active member, I see these hopeless young bottom-of-the-barrel candidates (people who can barely string sentences together) being selected for wards and duly elected by the stock Labour vote (on ridiculously low turnout). The issue of turnout is a challenge to most elections in the UK, bar the generals. I think it could be sorted by making voting compulsory with a "none of the above option", and moving elections to weekends. Also by pairing them up with other important ballots.

I agree that the leadership is shambolic, but I don't think mayors will change that. As I pointed out, there has been a single change between parties in mayorships excluding London - and that was after the incumbent was arrested on child pornography charges. The terrible leadership won't be improved by putting in mayors, because people simply don't care - look how it doesn't affect turnout. What will improve the leadership is making councillors and council leaders more visible, and that's done by giving them more power. Mayors are just passing the buck down the line - shifting the problem one step higher up the chain without solving it. To me, Doncaster is the ultimate argument against mayors.

Having a single, able, executive figure would not be a panacea by any means, but having an anti-establishment attitude to the way things currently are means I'll probably vote 'yes'. It's the same dilemma as with AV - I don't much like the proposal, but any change is better than the status quo remaining.

I disagree - I find it worse than the status quo. Not that I'm defending the status quo, which is awful, I just feel a lot of people are making a frying pan to fire transition.

[Matthew_Lowson]

(Original post by JPKC)
I'll be casting my first ballot for Labour. Also will vote on whether Manc should get a mayor, funnily enough I haven't decided and so will likely be making a judgement while hungry and half-asleep at 8am tomorrow. That's the kind of decision making that makes democracies so competent.

Enjoy, I voted at 7am the first year I could vote - not that I planned it like that, I wanted a dramatic diving to the box as they slowly closed it up - I was on placement and needed to be there for half past as we were going on a school trip and so it became that I was the first one crossed off the list.

We've got a mayoralty referendum too. Still milling it over but its looking like a no from me.

My brother has the chance to vote for the first time tomorrow - made me laugh earlier on, he admits to knowing very little other than the Lib Dems aren't very nice. He said in the car earlier it's going to be an 'eenie, meenie, minee mo' job. To which my Mum shouted at him saying women died trying to get the vote.

James just replied, 'Mum, one I'm a Man and two blokes aren't daft enough to be throwing themselves under horses.'

[TopHat]

In fairness, men died trying to get the vote too. Probably more of them too.

[Thunder and Jazz]

(Original post by JPKC)
I'm not going anywhere near a cinema until Prometheus. You should report back though.

Well, the short version is that you'll like it if you liked Thor. Mindless crap, but looks insanely pretty (99% of the time- there was one moment, perhaps two seconds worth, of absolutely appalling green screen during the climactic fight). Full of great little inner child moments. If you're not the kind of person who thinks when you watch films, this will be great for you. I personally had a few moments of zoning out.

The long version. I won't put any spoilers in, but I will put it in tags.

Spoiler:

Show

As I say, mindless crap. Story is awful. In general it's all very "well that just happened so this is about to happen. Oh, there, it happened. That means that this plot device needs to occur... oh there it is". Incredibly predictable film. Unsurprisingly, they don't manage to get enough character development to justify the presumably insane amount of money they spent on actors, though I don't fault them for this since it was an impossible task. Overall it would have been better as an animated film a la the Justice League stuff. Would have been much cheaper, probably looked better, and they wouldn't have had to do certain things they have to do for live action.

Now, that's the big picture. Actually, the smaller things were probably more good than bad. For example, most of the acting is better than in most Hollywood stuff nowadays. Highlights are Loki, who is once again fantastic, and Banner. This new Hulk is very good. I do speak as someone who hasn't seen the most recent Hulk film with Tim Roth in, but this guy is fantastic.

The 'oh woah that was so cool' level is pretty damn high. I won't spoil them, but basically once things get going there's about one every ten minutes. Example that you can all guess would happen so isn't too much of a spoil is when the Hulk is given a standard "God you're so thick, I'm much smarter and more powerful than you" speech ad proceeds to smash the **** out of the offending character. There are a very high level of one liners, which are all very TBBT. By that I mean, you can sense the wait they've left in for the laughter. Personally I'm not a fan of that, but I know that many people don't mind it. Lots of banter between Stark, Banner and Cpt America, but Loki gets to make his fair share of snappy remarks.

They managed to contrive a way to have pretty much every member of the Avengers fight, or at least hit once, each other. There's a nice early fight as they're still in the hour long exposition section. The action scenes are a little unbelievable in some cases. I don't mean in the sense that a giant green guy is smashing a load of enemies, that's a given. But Hawkeye hits literally every time, defying how ballistics works multiple times, and I mean every single time unless it would be plot relevant for him to not do so. A few times you're left wondering why a particular thing has happened. The action is incredibly structured, but is still worth watching. Any fight in which one of the assassins is involved is great.

The film looks pretty damn awesome. Great costumes, effects, sets. A minor spoiler is that they make the SHIELD heli-carrier happen. It's ****ing A. Things like Hulk hitting [hard thing] or Iron Man doing [flashy explosion type stuff] look really really pretty. As I said above, there are one or two extremely brief moments where it doesn't quite work, but in total this is probably less than a minute's worth of footage.

Overall, your inner child will probably enjoy it, but not a much as watching something like a Justice League animated film. It's very cheesy in parts and, because they had to fit so much in, there's an hour of underwhelming exposition to sit through. Badly storyboarded, well produced and acted. Had I been on my own watching it, I would have considered walking out, only stopping myself on the basis that at some point Hulk and Iron Man were going to blow **** up.

Spoilers: they do.

A sad thing is that there is basically no-one in this film that isn't white. Obvious exception of Fury aside, the only other time that there's any diversity is when they do a thing at the end where various civilians thank the Avengers for what they've done. There was at least an hour in the first half, no exaggerations, in which Fury was the only character of any kind not to be a white person. I think about four SHIELD members were of a different ethnicity, and SHIELD is ****ing massive. Same goes for generic civilians, bad guy soldiers etc.

[thunder_chunky]

(Original post by Thunder and Jazz)
A sad thing is that there is basically no-one in this film that isn't white. Obvious exception of Fury aside, the only other time that there's any diversity is when they do a thing at the end where various civilians thank the Avengers for what they've done. There was at least an hour in the first half, no exaggerations, in which Fury was the only character of any kind not to be a white person. I think about four SHIELD members were of a different ethnicity, and SHIELD is ****ing massive. Same goes for generic civilians, bad guy soldiers etc.

Um this is going to sound quite right wing but why does there need to be people who aren't white? Now and again certain characters in remakes or adaptions of books or old films have been cast to people of ethnicity. Now either it was because that actor was the best choice or because they felt like they needed an...ahem..."token."

I'm always a bit wary when people comment on such things unless race and ethnicity is relevant to a character and/or story.

[thunder_chunky]

I can't vote in the Mayoral election because I'm out of London by about 200 yards (no kidding) but we have local elections here. The problem is that there really isn't a lot of canvassing in my area. I mean I just see signs being put up but I don't meet the candidates and not every party puts a leaflet through the door.
I could just vote for the Lib Dem candidate but frankly I don't know enough about him/her despite this being a relatively strong area for the Lib Dems.

To be honest I might just spoil my ballot.

(Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
My brother has the chance to vote for the first time tomorrow - made me laugh earlier on, he admits to knowing very little other than the Lib Dems aren't very nice. He said in the car earlier it's going to be an 'eenie, meenie, minee mo' job. To which my Mum shouted at him saying women died trying to get the vote.

James just replied, 'Mum, one I'm a Man and two blokes aren't daft enough to be throwing themselves under horses.'

Good response there.

[tehFrance]

**** it is the London election today isn't it? I cannot walk as I am still drunk from last night