|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Yesterday's debate between the chancellor of the exchequer and his conservative and lib dem shadows is generally seen as the starting gun for the election. So it seems good to me to indulge myself with the rant that's been building over the past few years...
In the red, socialist corner, cowering desperately away from the title and pretending that they aren't the heirs of real socialists, we have the Labour party. Elected 13 years ago, the joys of office slowly but surely soured the early years of significant positive change, and the recent debacle of the recession and the sight of chickens coming to roost leaves them looking deeply flawed. The argument that 'we screwed it up last time, but this time we'll do better' is one that is not generally accepted from alcoholics, and the evidence of intoxication separating them from reality is easy to see. The failure to constrain public expenditure, instead hiding the true cost by failing to allow for either the pensions implicit in the 'investments' or the true cost of the PFI (Public Finance Initiative - a blatant effort at postponing the cost with an inevitable higher expenditure later) is wholly culpable. The wars in Iraq and especially Afghanistan were entered into without a full accounting of the real cost, leaving our soldiers to pay the price. And of course this government was in charge when the expenses scandal broke; whatever the rights or wrongs, their failure to be willing and enthusiastic about being open when it comes to bite them is perhaps inevitable, but still sickening. Meanwhile they are seriously proposing replacing the House of Lords with elected politicians. Whatever recent years have shown, the need for a group with the power to point to the lack of clothing of the elected ones is blatant; surely part of Italy's problem is this very lack.
Meanwhile, in the blue corner, we have a Tory party equally ill at ease with its ideological legacy, offering rather the prospect of better management of the country and the economy. One might hope that their privileged status and relative wealth would leave them less subject to the temptations of the expenses feeding trough, but instead many did succumb. This gave the leader the chance to purge a few whom he found problematic, whilst largely protecting his own elite. A brief display of candour about the need for 'swingeing cuts' led to polling discouragement, so convenient half truths were retreated to, not without indulging a populist cut of a proposed tax increase that is desperately needed. Meanwhile David Davis, who was willing to resign and stand again in a bye-election to highlight the growing loss of freedom in this country, was forced out of the shadow cabinet and left to fester on the back benches.
Sadly these are the only likely victors in the forthcoming election. Living as I do in a Lib Dem / Labour marginal, I shall hold my nose and vote Lib Dem on the grounds that regular change is probably better than endorsing a self perpetuating elite. But it is hard to rouse enthusiasm for the prospect of voting for a party that proposes introducing Proportional Representation. This will take the power of choosing the government from the hands of 40% of the electorate and handing it to 20% or less and allow special interests to wangle bribes for their people (as the Scots Nationalist are clearly already salivating at the prospect of being able to do in a hung parliament).
What of the alternatives? The BNP's emergence is a symptom of the failure of the present system; their overt racism has the virtue of honesty - at least they clearly believe in something, unlike the parties likely to win. But I'm obviously not going to vote for the racists...
Or indeed for UKIP; the hard question is to know whether they are really 'the BNP in blazers' or a truly non-racist party. Their emphasis against the EU is clearly sound; the idea that power should be transferred from people who you can sack at an election to those who are wholly unaccountable in any meaningful sense is logic of the authoritarian, though as a solution to the ability of voters to demand the irreconcilable, perhaps it has something to offer. And it's easier than changing the electorate, and if the electorate really get it wrong, they can be told to try again until they get it right - as the Irish found out over the Lisbon referendum...
Respect as a coherent party has the logic of the US Republicans: an untidy coalition of the religiously motivated, (in this case largely Islamic conservatives), with a group of political ideologues, in this case hard left socialists. At present however they are such a small group that their only effect is to distract a few activists from their natural home; the prospect of their giving the election to the right in the same way as third party candidates did in the US in 2000 can only raise a mild sigh of despair.
And meanwhile out on the fringe we have the Greens. For a moment at the time of the economic boom and the prospect of climate change being fought from a position of strength, there was a slight chance that their agenda would be seriously considered. Now however the pain of the recession and the self inflicted wounds of Emailgate have damaged their credibility at least for this election...
The lesson of the hype surrounding Blair and Obama when they first won, and the subsequent realisation that no one person can actually achieve mega change, is surely that we need to refrain from unrealistic expectations; human nature is flawed - so we can't really expect politicians to prove to be otherwise. The prospect of the anti-Christ, clearly prophesied in the New Testament, is a reminder that expecting too much from them is a recipe for total disaster; let's try rather to be faithful in praying for them and offering them support when they do well, not merely criticism when they cock up - as whoever gets in surely will...
[ 07. October 2010, 14:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Yawn.
I hope the peanut gallery comes good on this one.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
That's not a rant, that's an essay. I did like the comedy line though about the BNP's honesty regarding being racist.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Can we just get the line in early about "They're all as bad as each other", and take it as read for the rest of the thread?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif) I watched 30 seconds of the debate and switched channels.
We need a 'none of the above' choice on Ballot forms.
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
else spoil the ballot paper
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dal Segno
al Fine
# 14673
|
Posted
If you wish to register a protest vote, then spoiling your ballot paper will not do it.
You need to vote Green or UKIP or Monster Raving Loony (YMMV) to register a decent protest.
The long way to make a change is to join a party, canvas for policy changes, stand for parliament and, in maybe 20 years time, become a cabinet minister.
--------------------
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
Posts: 1200 | From: Pacific's triple star | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But it is hard to rouse enthusiasm for the prospect of voting for a party that proposes introducing Proportional Representation. This will take the power of choosing the government from the hands of 40% of the electorate and handing it to 20% or less and allow special interests to wangle bribes for their people (as the Scots Nationalist are clearly already salivating at the prospect of being able to do in a hung parliament).
Maybe I've missed something, but this is all just bollocks, isn't it? You might conceivably have a point about some systems of PR favouring third parties as "kingmakers" (although it's very unlikely that we'd adopt one of those systems, and the great benefit of systems like that is that even small parties can win seats, offering a perfect solution to your perceived lack of choice), but everything else is way off the mark.
You talk about a government elected by 40% of the electorate as if that's a good thing (hah!), and contrast it with your strange idea that PR would result in a government chosen by 20%. WTF? First, you need to define your terms. There's PR, and there's PR. The most likely form of PR in this country is STV, which is weak and not very proportional, and would merely have the effect of better representing everyone's views and preferences within the existing constituency system without the need for tactical voting and vote-swapping. If that bothers you, you need to get some perspective.
Second, you need to explain why a coalition government between parties polling 40% and 20% would result in the party polling 20% calling all the shots as you imply, why the 40% party would agree to a coalition on those terms, why their voters wouldn't turn elsewhere rather than continually voting for a party which has reasonable policies but bends over and spreads its cheeks at the first whiff of coalition, and why dictatorship by 40% is better than constructive compromise by 60%.
Third, you need to realise just how few votes actually matter in any election at the moment, how carefully the parties tailor their policies to appeal to the swing voters in their target constituencies, and how this relates to the lack of choice you were complaining about.
The rest of your rant was unintentionally amusing as well, but complaining that only two, virtually identical parties can win the election, while fainting in horror at the mere suggestion of some form of PR at some point in the future is spectacularly contradictory.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I watched 30 seconds of the debate and switched channels.
We need a 'none of the above' choice on Ballot forms.
I agree, but the problem arises: what if None Of The Above wins?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
Why be scared of a Minority Government, aka Hung Parliament? We've had three in a row here in the Land of Ice and Snow and it hasn't been the end of the world. It's even been mildly entertaining.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I have been known to spoil a ballot paper or even (shock) deliberately fail to vote. But then a friend pointed out that in doing so, I'm effectively saying that as I won't vote for one of the people willing to stand, and government is going to happen whether I like it or not, I'd prefer it if I was governed by somebody who wasn't elected.
Having said that, elected politicians sometimes need reminding that all that can really be said in terms of mandate to govern is that the electorate thought you were the least incompetent of those who actually bothered to apply for the job.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
The million and one irritations and directives emanating from Brussels mean that the Westminster Parliament is hardly worth bothering to vote for.
If UKIP weren't as mad as a box of frogs, they might be worth voting for to stem or even reverse the tide.
The West Lothian question hasn't been heard for a while. Any party got any good ideas on that one? Scottish MPs not allowed to vote on England (and/or Wales) only measures? Haven't checked the manifestos, but it's not making headlines.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) leads to:
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
The West Lothian question hasn't been heard for a while. Any party got any good ideas on that one? Scottish MPs not allowed to vote on England (and/or Wales) only measures? Haven't checked the manifestos, but it's not making headlines.
I think that's because in comparison to economic Armageddon and the complete destruction of our public services, banking industry, armed forces and civil liberties, whether or not a few Scottish MPs get to vote on certain matters is pretty small beer.
Edited to add: The very fact that you're bothered to bring that issue up speaks volumes about your own priorities.
[ 30. March 2010, 17:22: Message edited by: Imaginary Friend ]
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
The Conservatives have suggested (I think) altering the voting rights of Scottish MPs on English bills at certain stages of the the bill's progress through parliament (so, say, the whole House can vote on it except at Committee stage, when English MPs only vote).
Also, the Conservatives want to reduce the number of MPs in Parliament. I would imagine that the number of Scottish MPs would be reduced further if this were to occur.
I suppose the importance of the West Lothian question will depend on the results of the next election.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
Judging from the leafleting from all parties I thought the starting gun was irrelevant as they have been running laps already. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
churches here have set up a local hustings to encourage people to meet candidates face to face and question them - I have the 'joy' of chairing the meeting ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
What feels odd is that a certain red corner aren't even putting up a candidate here ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
No Labour candidate? Impossible, surely?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
Not yet declared and I have hunted links, emailed via national website, neighbouring party contacts on web... not a hint! (or even any reply!)
I grew up where it was said any donkey with a red rosette would get in, but we always had a blue candidate... and yellow, and locals.
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Benny Diction 2
Shipmate
# 14159
|
Posted
I am just fed up with how pathetic they all are. One party makes a policy statement and then the others are abusive. Like kids in the play ground.
And forgive me for using vile language but George Osborne is just a smug ... (no I'll be good and not call him a ...)
--------------------
Benny Diction
"The Labour party has never been a socialist party, although there have always been socialists in it - a bit like Christians in the Church of England." Tony Benn
Posts: 859 | From: Home of the magic roundabout | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Have you noticed how he and Cameron have some very similar little nuances in their speech? The way the sound consonants (especially b and p) at the end of words, for example. Perhaps they have the same voice coach.
One other interesting thing from the debate yesterday was how often Osborne referred to Cameron (it must have been something like a dozen times) compared to how often Darling referred to Brown (I don't remember him doing so). Says a bit about who wears the trousers in each of those relationships, doesn't it?
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
One other interesting thing from the debate yesterday was how often Osborne referred to Cameron (it must have been something like a dozen times) compared to how often Darling referred to Brown (I don't remember him doing so). Says a bit about who wears the trousers in each of those relationships, doesn't it?
I wonder whether Osborne makes reference to Cameron because Cameron is the more high-profile and popular politician and Darling doesn't refer to Brown because he loathes Brown (Brown nearly sacked Darling and it is rumoured that, should Labour win the next election, Darling will be sacked in favour of Ed Balls).
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
I've started a thread on PR in purgatory.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Thank God, my eyeballs were melting.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Picks up thread and examines it closely:
Hmmm, *prod*, flabby vestigial rant, *prod*, no bile production, *prod*, intermittent production of lumps of reason. This is purgatorial animal using faux hellish colouring to deter predatory debaters ...
Throws thread over the fence into Purgatory
Now remember, the rules of Purgatory are different ,,,,
Think²
Phasing Hell Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Traveller
Shipmate
# 1943
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
The West Lothian question hasn't been heard for a while. Any party got any good ideas on that one? Scottish MPs not allowed to vote on England (and/or Wales) only measures? Haven't checked the manifestos, but it's not making headlines.
I think that's because in comparison to economic Armageddon and the complete destruction of our public services, banking industry, armed forces and civil liberties, whether or not a few Scottish MPs get to vote on certain matters is pretty small beer.
Edited to add: The very fact that you're bothered to bring that issue up speaks volumes about your own priorities.
I agree that there are lots of issues. I can and do rant about all the ones you raise and I can give you others:
G. Brown's raid on the reclaim of Advance Corporation Tax by organisations with no Corporation Tax obligations (i.e. pension plans). At a stroke, it changed the funding arrangement of (private sector) pension schemes and changed contribution holidays (remember those?) to huge deficits in funded schemes.
Complete lack of spine about discussing the EU among all three political parties. How about a promise to have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? Oh, sorry, I did mention Europe in my earlier post, you just didn't quote it.
Energy policy. Gold plating the EU requirements around renewable energy sources and completely failing to plan for the scheduled retirement of much of the UK's current generating capacity. Legislating that new generating capacity must use "carbon capture", a technology that is an idea, not a proven engineering method. All political parties voted in favour, one vote against. Likely result in five years time - power cuts or a means to restrict consumer's use. Start knitting wooly jumpers now.
I could go on, but my blood pressure is rising alarmingly! My kids already refer to me as the Grumpy Old Man.
My point about the West Lothian question was that the election will have many factors which some people will give differing weight in their reckoning of who to vote for. When push comes to shove and the main issue is "It's the economy, stupid" and nearly everyone feels worse off, the Barnett formula* and the equally unjust favourable treatment of Scots in the West Lothian question may just register on voters lists of priorities.
* For cross-pond readers. Public spending has for four decades been allocated between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by a (supposedly temporary) formula named after a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Joel Barnett. Average spending per capita in Scotland in 20% more than in England, with Wales at 14% more and Northern Ireland 31% more. Read more about this wonderful (for the non-English residents) system in the Wiki Article.
--------------------
I will sing unto the Lord as long as I live:
I will praise my God while I have my being.
Psalm 104 v.33
Posts: 1037 | From: Wherever the car has stopped at the moment! | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
The problem with the "West Lothian Question" is that apart from a handful of sad political process geeks, no-one in England cares a fart about it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Just to clarify, the Australian system for federal and I suspect for other elections is not STV but Alternative vote; this allows the elector to rank candidate in a SINGLE member constituency in order of preference - STV has multimember constituencies. This ensures that every MP is the least disliked candidate, with the result that the centre is likely to benefit over extremes.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The problem with the "West Lothian Question" is that apart from a handful of sad political process geeks, no-one in England cares a fart about it.
I'm not sure that's true. I rather suspect that an awful lot of people in England don't actually know about it.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepwalker:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The problem with the "West Lothian Question" is that apart from a handful of sad political process geeks, no-one in England cares a fart about it.
I'm not sure that's true. I rather suspect that an awful lot of people in England don't actually know about it.
Indeed. There are in general two groups of people who know about it.
One is very well-informed Labour (centre-left) intellectuals. Who much as they might dislike the inconsistency of the current reality know that the only logical solution would benefit the Conservative Party in England, and probably the Nationalists in Scotland too. Thus they don't make too much of it.
The other is the well-informed Conservative who historically were strong Unionists as well. Thus they satisfied their unionist soul by surrendering a few votes. What has happened over the past few years is a growth of English Nationalism within the Conservative tent which is not so wedded to the union. They are the group who run with it.
The result by national popular vote in the next General Election will be a narrow win for Conservatives in England, huge wins for Labour in Scotland and Wales and for the Unionists in Northern Ireland. The overall UK result lies in the weighted average of those results by constituency turnout and celtic over-representation!
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
Originally quoted by St Punk the pious:
quote:
My sympathy to all those in the UK who are saddled with the prospect of either Brown or Cameron as PM.
We get the politicians we deserve. One is the result of the incumbent party being too wet to depose their gaffe-prone leader because he'll have a hissy fit and shout at them. The other is the product of a desperate opposition copying the other lot by getting themselves a Blair clone. ("Well, it worked for them..."). Politically at least, Britain is currently a rather spineless nation that has run out of ideas.
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
To be fair, that's not the only reason why Brown is still Labour's leader. Another big factor is that nobody wants the poisoned chalice of having to fight this election and the inevitable blame when it is lost.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Traveller:
* For cross-pond readers. Public spending has for four decades been allocated between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by a (supposedly temporary) formula named after a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Joel Barnett. Average spending per capita in Scotland in 20% more than in England, with Wales at 14% more and Northern Ireland 31% more. Read more about this wonderful (for the non-English residents) system in the Wiki Article.
But were Wales funded as an English region it would do better than under the current system! Which shows that there's large variation within the countries too. Straight per capita doesn't work because deprivation and rurality mean some things cost more in some places than others.
Carys
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
If Wales had the same electoral quota as an English region it would lose about 7 or 8 MPs.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Touchstone:
Politically at least, Britain is currently a rather spineless nation that has run out of ideas.
And the nation that has not run out of ideas is.....??
Please enlighten me. I would be most fascinated to know where you think political inspiration is currently likely to be found.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Touchstone
Shipmate
# 3560
|
Posted
I'm not claiming Britain is any better or worse than anywhere else. Perhaps we're witnessing a general exhaustion of capitalist democracy, to be followed by...what, exactly? Chinese style totalitarianism? Scarey thought.
I seem to remember many of us having high hopes of a certain B. Obama a couple of years back, hopes which may not have been entirely misplaced.
--------------------
Jez we did hand the next election to the Tories on a plate!
Posts: 163 | From: Somewhere west of Bristol | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
The OP on this thread seems to wallow in the slough of despond, as if the sudden realisation has hit that, in the UK, we don't seem to have a political system that can deliver peace, joy, happiness, inspiration and all that is good in life. But what I would like to know is this: what political system could ever achieve such a thing? Putting my "evangelical cap" on, I am mindful of the reality of human nature, which will exploit and abuse any system, no matter how finely tuned and intelligently managed.
Now that is not to say that we should not try to create the best possible system, which is most effective at holding evil in check. But the idea that any external system could really deliver "The Good" is, to my mind, rather dehumanising, as if humans only need to be managed - like chickens in a coop - in order to attain contentment and prosperity.
All the ranting and raving about politics that our society currently indulges in, is really a longing for a state of affairs, which is not even desirable. Let's get politics and economics in its proper perspective. The quality of any political system cannot rise any higher than the moral quality of the people both running it and for whom or "on whom" it is run. For example, it is impossible for society to function without an atmosphere of trust - a state of affairs which can only be influenced by legislation to a limited extent.
I also wonder whether a lot of the cynicism about the election is due to information overload. If professional economists are engaged in a continual - and resolution defying - debate about the rights and wrongs of Keynsianism versus neo-liberalism, then what hope is there for the rest of us? And how many of us can really get our heads round the intricate maze of financial speculation? We are bombarded with all this stuff, and expected to have an opinion. Well, my opinion is that government intervention works in some situations but not in others. Therefore there is a need for pragmatism.
But how can political parties campaign on the basis of pragmatism? They all need their brand and pitch - and thus their messages are reduced to slogans, pleas for personal trust and short-term promises. The alternative is an in-depth debate on issues that even the best minds cannot agree on.
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
Second, you need to explain why a coalition government between parties polling 40% and 20% would result in the party polling 20% calling all the shots as you imply, why the 40% party would agree to a coalition on those terms, why their voters wouldn't turn elsewhere rather than continually voting for a party which has reasonable policies but bends over and spreads its cheeks at the first whiff of coalition, and why dictatorship by 40% is better than constructive compromise by 60%.
I have had my doubts about PR - due to the power available to smaller parties - but I think your comment is extremely valid. No system is perfect, of course, but it cannot be right that, in the forthcoming election, the vast majority of votes will not really make any difference under the current system, as they will be cast in safe seats. I'm coming round to supporting electoral reform, as I think the frustration generated by the current system is a greater evil than the possible horsetrading of PR or some such variant, such as STV (cumbersome though the latter system is). I take the view that representation is more desirable than the kind of stability it is claimed only one party can achieve.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The OP on this thread seems to wallow in the slough of despond, as if the sudden realisation has hit that, in the UK, we don't seem to have a political system that can deliver peace, joy, happiness, inspiration and all that is good in life. But what I would like to know is this: what political system could ever achieve such a thing?
But democracy has produced great social reformers - otherwise we would still be living in the same social conditions as in the nineteenth century.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
watfordpete
Shipmate
# 14797
|
Posted
The OP asks if UKIP is truly non-racist... other posters seem to imply that voting for them is OK... here's an extract from their policy statements:
A significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society. This problem is encouraged by the official promotion of multiculturalism which threatens social cohesion.
Might not be racist per se but it's pretty intolerant.
{edited for minor typo]
[ 08. April 2010, 09:45: Message edited by: watfordpete ]
--------------------
Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets (Luke 6.26)
Posts: 77 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by watfordpete:
The OP asks if UKIP is truly non-racist... other posters seem to imply that voting for them is OK... here's an extract from their policy statements:
A significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society. This problem is encouraged by the official promotion of multiculturalism which threatens social cohesion.
Might not be racist per se but it's pretty intolerant.
{edited for minor typo]
I cannot see anything intolerant in that statement - it is a statement of fact and one I doubt whether any of the other parties would deny if they were honest enough to debate the issue.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
watfordpete
Shipmate
# 14797
|
Posted
I'm sorry but the statement that promotion of multiculturalism threatens social cohesion does not strike me as a statement of fact. I suppose it might depend on what is meant by 'multiculturalism' but I see it as meaning understanding of different cultures, and cultural roots, within society. That to me seems like a way of developing social cohesion rather than threatening it.
--------------------
Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets (Luke 6.26)
Posts: 77 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by watfordpete:
I'm sorry but the statement that promotion of multiculturalism threatens social cohesion does not strike me as a statement of fact. I suppose it might depend on what is meant by 'multiculturalism' but I see it as meaning understanding of different cultures, and cultural roots, within society. That to me seems like a way of developing social cohesion rather than threatening it.
What we have had in this country for some time is what multiculturalism is: different cultures moving here and establishing themselves alongside the indigenous culture. So far as I'm aware, multiculturalism is not integrationist and certainly isn't assimilist. It is more separatist: that each culture should be retained as a whole and be tolerated.
In the Times Educational Supplement about three weeks ago there was an article on an attempt being made to federate two high schools in Rochdale. One high school had a majority of Asian students; the other European (since I'm defining on continental grounds!). In the article it stated that Rochdale has the reputation of being the most segregated town in the UK and there were race riots there a few years back. This federation of schools was in response to those riots. However, the plans had broken down because agreement could not be reached between the two communities (and included in that were teaching and non-teaching members of the communities).
I think it was last year when I watched a programme which might have been Dispatches or it might have been something else, but it followed two taxi drivers around their beat in Burnley. One half of Burnley is predominantly Asian; the other, predominantly European. And the two just don't seem to cross over, according to what was shown on that programme.
The integration of immigrant people in this country has not been managed very well IMO. I'm sure there are many reasons why that is the case but clearly there is evidence to suggest, in many towns and cities throughout the country, where there are separate communities co-existing in the same area, that multiculturalism threatens social cohesion. It certainly does nothing to promote it. What the solution is I have no idea, but I think it is a shame the way things have turned out.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
watfordpete
Shipmate
# 14797
|
Posted
I think, therefore, that is primarily a statement of how one views multiculturalism. I live in Luton. Many media reports would, and do, portray it as a divided town. It makes a good media story.
I don't happen to see it that way. There are many 'cultures' represented in the town. They live alongside and with each other. It is a vibrant place with many 'cultures' providing elements to that social mix. Some elements of each 'culture' take it in themselves to look for opportunities to undermine social cohesion.
That the few undermine it for the many is not, in my opinion, reason for basing a policy of stopping (controlled) immigration.
And yes, people do come in and fit into their own culture - we have, amongst others, large Irish, Polish, Jamaican and various Asian and African communities. They are identifiable as having a distinct identity.
Over the years though they are becoming, or will become, assimilated... there is no longer a very distinctive Italian community in the town, for example. The descendents (to refer back to UKIP) of the Italian migrants of the 40s/50s have integrated.
And as for places like Burnley and Rochdale having no go areas for different community groups - the same can be said of all-white estates in Glasgow or Manchester or London. And those examples have nothing to do with immigration.
--------------------
Woe to you when all speak well of you, for that is what their ancestors did to the false prophets (Luke 6.26)
Posts: 77 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
If you want to get the measure of UKIP's tolerance, look at the asylum policy. It's got one paragraph on protecting victims of persecution, and seven on why asylum seekers are mostly cheats and terrorists but the EU won't let us do anything about it.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you want to get the measure of UKIP's tolerance, look at the asylum policy. It's got one paragraph on protecting victims of persecution, and seven on why asylum seekers are mostly cheats and terrorists but the EU won't let us do anything about it.
For the record, the equivalent rankings for the other parties are:
Labour: One paragraph on "why a faster system is a more compassionate system", one paragraph on "isn't it good that people aren't claiming asylum here", and one on preventing human trafficking (here).
Conservatives: I can't find any actual policy statements, but some digging round brings up this pdf, containing twenty proposals, all twenty of which are about cracking down on false claimants.
As a comparison, imagine a policy on "support for victims of crime" which consisted solely of "check they're not making it up, the lying bastards".
The Liberal Democrats, on the other hand, have a policy saying almost nothing about false claimants.
[ 08. April 2010, 17:10: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you want to get the measure of UKIP's tolerance, look at the asylum policy. It's got one paragraph on protecting victims of persecution, and seven on why asylum seekers are mostly cheats and terrorists but the EU won't let us do anything about it.
UKIP insist that “a significant proportion of immigrants and their descendents in Britain are neither assimilating nor integrating into British society”. They oppose multiculturalism and political correctness, and promotes uniculturalism - aiming to create a single British culture embracing all races and religions”.
They want schools to “teach about Britain's contribution to the world, such as British inventions, promoting democracy and the rule of law and the role of Britain in fighting slavery and Nazism”. They do not envisage that there might be anything negative in Britain’s history.
They would repeal the Human Rights Act.
In fact, their policies are very similar to the BNP.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The OP on this thread seems to wallow in the slough of despond, as if the sudden realisation has hit that, in the UK, we don't seem to have a political system that can deliver peace, joy, happiness, inspiration and all that is good in life.
My OP was originally written for Hell and never intended as a starter to a more serious contribution seeking to suggest ways forward: it was intended to highlight rather the degree to which there is a major problem in this country. My personal belief at the moment is that the best solution would be a shortening of duration of parliaments from the current 5 years to 3 - as in Oz and New Zealand - or even shorter. This is in the hope that the traditional game of politicians of fudging the truth to get elected and doing the nasty stuff early on despite the cries of pain and being nice towards the end to then repeat the exercise might finally cease and instead we see leaders being honest about the reality that we face. At the moment politicians know that they can get away with large amounts of flannel because in fact people do forget it all by the next election; instead they should be offered the hard choices and encouraged to make clear decisions. One of the problems of PR is that the degree of choice is even more removed - instead the same elite is offered with some marginal changes but no real change; at least FPTP offers clear choices - though in practice elections are times when these are blurred for the most part.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
As an American, might I ask my British shipmates a question about election politics? If I understand correctly, one of Labor/Labour's policy points is a fully elected House of Lords. But wouldn't that end the idea of parliamentary supremacy?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
One of the problems of PR is that the degree of choice is even more removed - instead the same elite is offered with some marginal changes but no real change; at least FPTP offers clear choices - though in practice elections are times when these are blurred for the most part.
But it doesn't. If you live in a safe seat then the Party elite can put up whomsoever it likes and they will be elected. That's why there are jokes about a donkey winning if nominated by the dominant party. Admittedly, it occaisionally doesn't work -- the Tories took Southport to be a safe seat in 1987 and parachuted in a candidate failing to recognise that Sandgrounders are parochial over tribally conservative so a local LibDem won (but LibDems had councillors in some wards anyway). But I'd say that was the exception rather than the rule (and I only know about it because I lived there)*
The seat I currently live in has 50% of the vote for one candidate. Admittedly, the student vote is part of that and its now an almost entirely different cohort, but LibDems do do well amongst students.
At least at the Assembly Elections, I get my second vote where the vote for my party actually counts and means that there are two Plaid AMs for my region.
Carys
*In 1992 it reverted to Tory when they selected someone with a local wife.
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
As an American, might I ask my British shipmates a question about election politics? If I understand correctly, one of Labor/Labour's policy points is a fully elected House of Lords. But wouldn't that end the idea of parliamentary supremacy?
The pattern for most parliamentary systems is that the second house has a revising role, and one chamber can overrule the other when push comes to shove. Thus in Germany a majority in the Bundestag can overrule a majority in the Bundesrat, although it can't overrule a 2/3 majority in the Bundesrat. It's my understanding that the Labour proposals for the Lords has some such approach; personally I can't see them surviving the question 'Do we want more elected politicians when we all know what they've been up to recently?' Or at least I hope so - the Lords is one of the best parts of the UK constitution, and Labour's willingness to destroy it is one of their worst features.
On the election generally, I'm very taken with the Economist's editorial this week: quote:
Voters deserve a more radical vision than the timid and uninspiring policies all parties have put forward so far
from here
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
