Today I'm angry about.....
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Got that, Chief. I just wanted to make a very clear distinction for other readers etc.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 7:13 pmT'was directed at Hobes, mate, who's previously said he voted for both, rather than a generalization...Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:44 pmJust to be clear here, Worthy, it most certainly doesn't follow that a vote for 'this government' equates to a vote for Brexit.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:51 pmAnd they call us Remoaners! You voted for this Government? you voted for Brexit? Which bit's not as you envisaged, pet? Do you need a snowflake hug?
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
It might not. But I’d wager anyone who thought Brexit was a terrible idea based on the lies of charlatans and then subsequently voted for said charlatans are in reality a tiny minority. There won’t be many.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:44 pmJust to be clear here, Worthy, it most certainly doesn't follow that a vote for 'this government' equates to a vote for Brexit.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:51 pmAnd they call us Remoaners! You voted for this Government? you voted for Brexit? Which bit's not as you envisaged, pet? Do you need a snowflake hug?
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
My idea that Brexit was a terrible idea is based on me working in export sales for a UK manufacturer. feck all to do with any of your narrative-serving scenarios.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:12 pmIt might not. But I’d wager anyone who thought Brexit was a terrible idea based on the lies of charlatans and then subsequently voted for said charlatans are in reality a tiny minority. There won’t be many.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:44 pmJust to be clear here, Worthy, it most certainly doesn't follow that a vote for 'this government' equates to a vote for Brexit.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:51 pmAnd they call us Remoaners! You voted for this Government? you voted for Brexit? Which bit's not as you envisaged, pet? Do you need a snowflake hug?
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Narrative serving? You knew it was a bad idea. Yet you voted for the guys who also knew it was a bad idea but lied to everyone to tell them how good it would be for their own political gain.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:52 pmMy idea that Brexit was a terrible idea is based on me working in export sales for a UK manufacturer. feck all to do with any of your narrative-serving scenarios.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 8:12 pmIt might not. But I’d wager anyone who thought Brexit was a terrible idea based on the lies of charlatans and then subsequently voted for said charlatans are in reality a tiny minority. There won’t be many.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Thu Dec 09, 2021 6:44 pmJust to be clear here, Worthy, it most certainly doesn't follow that a vote for 'this government' equates to a vote for Brexit.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:51 pmAnd they call us Remoaners! You voted for this Government? you voted for Brexit? Which bit's not as you envisaged, pet? Do you need a snowflake hug?
It’s not a narrative. Either you think the above or that they were incredibly stupid. Either way I’m not really sure many would have supported this group of charlatans other than they ‘wanted Brexit done’.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Or they thought that having the equivocating Jeremy Corbyn as PM would be worse. Voting for doesn't necessarily mean total agreement with.
...
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
You didn’t need to vote for either. Handing a mandate to people you think are either liars or stupid (has to be one or the other) is probably not going to work out well.
And as it unsurprisingly turns out this lot are more dangerous than any other option given their penchant for control of the judicial system and the media. It’s sinister and there isn’t a worse option available (at least democratically).
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Which is exactly why they got my vote.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
To paraphrase Bob Dylan 'That's like saying, I've got a cold, I'll take a shot of malaria'.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
If you say so Though if there was a GE this afternoon I wouldn't be voting for anyone.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:01 amTo paraphrase Bob Dylan 'That's like saying, I've got a cold, I'll take a shot of malaria'.
May the bridges I burn light your way
- TANGODANCER
- Immortal
- Posts: 43601
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
- Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
You're so right Bruce. I adopted that attitude many years back and have stuck with it since. Politics are like the law in this country; neither have moved on since Oliver Cromwell.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:05 am
If you say so Though if there was a GE this afternoon I wouldn't be voting for anyone.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Understandable. I'd vote Labour this time because they have a competent grown up in charge. A very dull one - who is uninspiring. But I actually think we need that - for a period. We need boring, grey, dull politicians. And Keir is that option. I also know they cannot win a majority and that is a good thing because we also need collaborative politics not handing a mandate to either major party.Bruce Rioja wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:05 amIf you say so Though if there was a GE this afternoon I wouldn't be voting for anyone.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:01 amTo paraphrase Bob Dylan 'That's like saying, I've got a cold, I'll take a shot of malaria'.
I've never been warm on PR but I am now. For the reason we can see now. It protects our democracy from Trump/Boris situations and the alarming drift to extremes either way has shown that we cannot maintain FPTP seriously as an electoral system purely because it hands large majorities on less than 50% of the vote to parties who are not fit to have that power. Last time a prime example. The abuses on our democracy are dangerous and not only immediately. Who knows what cranks may inherit leadership of the Tories or Labour and win by default and in effect have power to change the decisions made by our courts and control our media.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
I don't think FPTP is the problem. I prefer PR, just, but the issue is the responsibility of both major parties who have allowed their members too much power. The leader of both parties should be chosen by the MPs, that's who they lead, and they are accountable to the public both specifically in their constituency and more widely in the country (many a good constituency MP has lost their seat in a nationwide swing).
Instead, in the name of being "more democratic" both party leaders are chosen in the largest part but the kind of nutters who join political parties. They tend heavily to the more extreme end. So you have one party leader having to pander to the blue rinse god I wish I was back in the war I've convinced myself I lived through lot, and the other pandering to the nationalise Apple, happy birthday Gerry Adams and oh that's a clever mural of hook-nosed bankers lot.
And here we are. Both parties massively to blame, and where FPTP is relevant is that there is no real chance for anyone else to get through.
Normally in these circumstances it's the Tories who decide to get serious, but looks like Labour this time.
Instead, in the name of being "more democratic" both party leaders are chosen in the largest part but the kind of nutters who join political parties. They tend heavily to the more extreme end. So you have one party leader having to pander to the blue rinse god I wish I was back in the war I've convinced myself I lived through lot, and the other pandering to the nationalise Apple, happy birthday Gerry Adams and oh that's a clever mural of hook-nosed bankers lot.
And here we are. Both parties massively to blame, and where FPTP is relevant is that there is no real chance for anyone else to get through.
Normally in these circumstances it's the Tories who decide to get serious, but looks like Labour this time.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
There are very complex reasons that this drift to extremism happened. But PR is probably the best way to protect against it since in FPTP I can (and have) voted for others but that vote counts for nowt. And were we in PR it would avoid a party being able to corrupt govt as this lot are - because they'd have moderating smaller parties who could block it.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:36 pmI don't think FPTP is the problem. I prefer PR, just, but the issue is the responsibility of both major parties who have allowed their members too much power. The leader of both parties should be chosen by the MPs, that's who they lead, and they are accountable to the public both specifically in their constituency and more widely in the country (many a good constituency MP has lost their seat in a nationwide swing).
Instead, in the name of being "more democratic" both party leaders are chosen in the largest part but the kind of nutters who join political parties. They tend heavily to the more extreme end. So you have one party leader having to pander to the blue rinse god I wish I was back in the war I've convinced myself I lived through lot, and the other pandering to the nationalise Apple, happy birthday Gerry Adams and oh that's a clever mural of hook-nosed bankers lot.
And here we are. Both parties massively to blame, and where FPTP is relevant is that there is no real chance for anyone else to get through.
Normally in these circumstances it's the Tories who decide to get serious, but looks like Labour this time.
The system isn't the cause but it also offers very little protection.
And the system we have now - will almost certainly prevent Labour (who seem to have a front bench more or less that is serious and competent) from winning - and arguably from even governing bar a landslide. Whereas PR would remove that ability for the excesses of the Tories or Labour to ever be unchecked by democratic process. In theory.
Johnson has calculated for a long time he can do what he wants because Labour cannot win and he would retain a majority regardless. And that has effectively been the case till now and even now Labour would be well short of a majority.
And frankly the smaller parties offer something now that we've lost - sensible voices, different balance and the ability to stop the endless and tedious cycle of big parties governing for LONG periods and becoming absolutely desensitised to reality.
- Abdoulaye's Twin
- Legend
- Posts: 9384
- Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 1:27 pm
- Location: Skye high
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Whilst I would prefer PR, you have to be careful that smaller parties with minority issues aren't able to impose their minority issue by selling their support to the in power party. Things that might be deeply unpopular with most of us could become reality if a PM thought it worthwhile to get their own agenda through.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
As opposed to larger parties corrupting the seat of power and dragging us through the mire?Abdoulaye's Twin wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 6:43 pmWhilst I would prefer PR, you have to be careful that smaller parties with minority issues aren't able to impose their minority issue by selling their support to the in power party. Things that might be deeply unpopular with most of us could become reality if a PM thought it worthwhile to get their own agenda through.
I do agree. The downside of PR is extremist parties have potentially power you’d rather they didn’t. But the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. The Tories now would be very different if they were worried about losing a few percentage points in the polls next time. That could impact their ability to govern. Whereas now it’s quite possible even likely with the boundary changes that Labour could win more votes yet still have fewer seats than the Tories. This happens with long term governments Labour sis the same and held many of the same advantages. But it just means you have no real protection against these excesses.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
To a small extent yes, but really there is no "drift to extremism" only in the positions of the main parties, and the voices amplified by social media and 24 hour news (which are linked). And that's because the members, the most interested weirdos, are the ones who picked the leaders. It was a good thing when the leaders of the major parties agreed on lots.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 5:11 pmThere are very complex reasons that this drift to extremism happened. But PR is probably the best way to protect against it since in FPTP I can (and have) voted for others but that vote counts for nowt. And were we in PR it would avoid a party being able to corrupt govt as this lot are - because they'd have moderating smaller parties who could block it.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:36 pmI don't think FPTP is the problem. I prefer PR, just, but the issue is the responsibility of both major parties who have allowed their members too much power. The leader of both parties should be chosen by the MPs, that's who they lead, and they are accountable to the public both specifically in their constituency and more widely in the country (many a good constituency MP has lost their seat in a nationwide swing).
Instead, in the name of being "more democratic" both party leaders are chosen in the largest part but the kind of nutters who join political parties. They tend heavily to the more extreme end. So you have one party leader having to pander to the blue rinse god I wish I was back in the war I've convinced myself I lived through lot, and the other pandering to the nationalise Apple, happy birthday Gerry Adams and oh that's a clever mural of hook-nosed bankers lot.
And here we are. Both parties massively to blame, and where FPTP is relevant is that there is no real chance for anyone else to get through.
Normally in these circumstances it's the Tories who decide to get serious, but looks like Labour this time.
The system isn't the cause but it also offers very little protection.
And the system we have now - will almost certainly prevent Labour (who seem to have a front bench more or less that is serious and competent) from winning - and arguably from even governing bar a landslide. Whereas PR would remove that ability for the excesses of the Tories or Labour to ever be unchecked by democratic process. In theory.
Johnson has calculated for a long time he can do what he wants because Labour cannot win and he would retain a majority regardless. And that has effectively been the case till now and even now Labour would be well short of a majority.
And frankly the smaller parties offer something now that we've lost - sensible voices, different balance and the ability to stop the endless and tedious cycle of big parties governing for LONG periods and becoming absolutely desensitised to reality.
The abdication of the responsibility to lead by throwing it out to the nutters is why we're fecked. That's broadly immaterial to political process.
In a world that has decided
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
That it's going to lose its mind
Be more kind, my friends, try to be more kind.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
There has been a shift to extremes in society across almost all Western democracies. It doesn’t mean everyone is extremist but the numbers that are in either side are far, far higher. There is as you say a social media amplification but it’s more than that alone. There has been a shift, probably driven by online news, and echo chambers.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:46 pmTo a small extent yes, but really there is no "drift to extremism" only in the positions of the main parties, and the voices amplified by social media and 24 hour news (which are linked). And that's because the members, the most interested weirdos, are the ones who picked the leaders. It was a good thing when the leaders of the major parties agreed on lots.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 5:11 pmThere are very complex reasons that this drift to extremism happened. But PR is probably the best way to protect against it since in FPTP I can (and have) voted for others but that vote counts for nowt. And were we in PR it would avoid a party being able to corrupt govt as this lot are - because they'd have moderating smaller parties who could block it.Prufrock wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 4:36 pmI don't think FPTP is the problem. I prefer PR, just, but the issue is the responsibility of both major parties who have allowed their members too much power. The leader of both parties should be chosen by the MPs, that's who they lead, and they are accountable to the public both specifically in their constituency and more widely in the country (many a good constituency MP has lost their seat in a nationwide swing).
Instead, in the name of being "more democratic" both party leaders are chosen in the largest part but the kind of nutters who join political parties. They tend heavily to the more extreme end. So you have one party leader having to pander to the blue rinse god I wish I was back in the war I've convinced myself I lived through lot, and the other pandering to the nationalise Apple, happy birthday Gerry Adams and oh that's a clever mural of hook-nosed bankers lot.
And here we are. Both parties massively to blame, and where FPTP is relevant is that there is no real chance for anyone else to get through.
Normally in these circumstances it's the Tories who decide to get serious, but looks like Labour this time.
The system isn't the cause but it also offers very little protection.
And the system we have now - will almost certainly prevent Labour (who seem to have a front bench more or less that is serious and competent) from winning - and arguably from even governing bar a landslide. Whereas PR would remove that ability for the excesses of the Tories or Labour to ever be unchecked by democratic process. In theory.
Johnson has calculated for a long time he can do what he wants because Labour cannot win and he would retain a majority regardless. And that has effectively been the case till now and even now Labour would be well short of a majority.
And frankly the smaller parties offer something now that we've lost - sensible voices, different balance and the ability to stop the endless and tedious cycle of big parties governing for LONG periods and becoming absolutely desensitised to reality.
The abdication of the responsibility to lead by throwing it out to the nutters is why we're fecked. That's broadly immaterial to political process.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 33347
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Any system where you can win more votes than the opposition and lose on seats, is wrong in my book. Just farcical.
- BWFC_Insane
- Immortal
- Posts: 37062
- Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 4:07 pm
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
Indeed. And the system is only there because it generally preserves the status quo. And because British people seem to prefer adversarial nonsense rather than collaborative effective politics.Worthy4England wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 11:31 pmAny system where you can win more votes than the opposition and lose on seats, is wrong in my book. Just farcical.
- Bruce Rioja
- Immortal
- Posts: 38742
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 9:19 pm
- Location: Drifting into the arena of the unwell.
Re: Today I'm angry about.....
100% agreement; though I'm unsure as to why you've never been warm to PR previously.BWFC_Insane wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 3:55 pm
I've never been warm on PR but I am now. For the reason we can see now. It protects our democracy from Trump/Boris situations and the alarming drift to extremes either way has shown that we cannot maintain FPTP seriously as an electoral system purely because it hands large majorities on less than 50% of the vote to parties who are not fit to have that power.
May the bridges I burn light your way
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 45 guests