|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: An alien concept in British political culture?
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
Yes, though one of the first things they did was give themselves a guaranteed 5 year term.
But if they want it, they had it anyway. Under the new scheme, a government can still lose a vote of no confidence and trigger an election. Under the old scheme, a government could always choose not to go to the country until the 5 years was up.
The only thing that you lose in the new scheme is the ability for the governing party to call an election at a time when the swinging of the political pendulum favours them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
That is a major constitutional change.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
And if nobody succeed in 'winning' (which only makes sense when you talk about parties), then the elected MPs face a choice. They can either twiddle their thumbs for the next several years on the grounds that nobody has a mandate for anything, or they can get on with the business of trading ideas, recognising that they might have to (gasp!) compromise.
Yes, and if the people who voted for them don't like the compromises they make, they can register their displeasure at the ballot box the next time around. And we can have expectations on what those compromises are likely to be based on the things they say, especially in election campaigns. That's how it works. OK, it sucks, but it's the system we have now. And if people like Clegg try to play the system so that can get a shot at power without much of a thought for how blatently different post election actions are from pre - election promises they are going to get their arses kicked.
Sorry, how exactly did he 'play the system'? Voter fraud?
I can well understand why people get upset with a major party when it goes to an election with a set of policies, wins, and then does something different with no discernable reason as to why. I genuinely cannot understand why people still get so upset with parties that went to an election with particular policies and there's a hung Parliament, and policies changes. Because there's a very discernable reason why the policy had to change.
(The same applies, by the way, when there's clear objective evidence that circumstances have changed in some other way such that the original policy may not work in a new context.)
Fine, so the election platform was a party's first choice. What do they do when the first choice isn't available?
It feels oddly reminiscent of going to the shop to buy something for another person. Maybe as trivial as going to buy ice cream and asking what flavour they want, and then getting to the shop and discovering that flavour isn't available. What do you do? Do you go back completely empty handed? Most people when faced with this situation will try to come up with an alternative.
I know people who will accept the substitution with good grace. I know people who will try to guard against this by saying "and if they don't have X, then Y or Z is an acceptable substitute". And I know people who will treat any substitution as some kind of profound moral outrage and ignore the reality that their first choice wasn't possible.
I get a bit tired of how much the 'profound moral outrage' crowd manage to dominate political discourse.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Sorry, how exactly did he 'play the system'? Voter fraud?
I'd say that relying on voters who favour one set of policies to get you into a position of holding the balance of power and then form a government implementing radically different policies is playing the system.
quote:
Fine, so the election platform was a party's first choice. What do they do when the first choice isn't available?
Stay on the opposition benches.
quote:
And I know people who will treat any substitution as some kind of profound moral outrage and ignore the reality that their first choice wasn't possible.
In your scenario we are looking at the guy who comes back from the shop and says, "Well, I couldn't get you any bread, but I've got you a Porsche instead. It'll only set you back sixty grand, and you've got to pay it. Sorry, but what do you expect when you send me to do your shopping?"
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
"Stay on the opposition benches" is exactly what I'm talking about. No real hope of getting any policies through from the opposition benches.
An ideologically pure loss is apparently what you (and many others) would prefer. But it's a loss.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
"Stay on the opposition benches" is exactly what I'm talking about. No real hope of getting any policies through from the opposition benches
I'm sorry, I was under the mistaken impression that one aim of democracy is to get policies through that have some sort of support from the people who voted for the parties implementing them.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
That's the problem.
We vote for individuals who represent parties. We don't vote for policies. It can probably be assumed that people vote for the individual/party that has the most policies they want implemented and/or the least policies that thet don't want implemented. But, it's a dangerous mistake to assume that a vote for an individual/party is an endorsement of the entire package of policies or a rejection of the entire packages of the policies of other individuals/parties.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Exactly.
The other mistake is to assume that the democratic process stops on election day. If people don't like a policy shift, then they should be getting onto the MPs and communicating that they don't like the policy shift.
It's like performance review. Waiting until the 5 years are up to 'punish' them for doing the wrong thing isn't very effective if you haven't said, in the intervening 5 years, what you're unhappy about.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
But, it's a dangerous mistake to assume that a vote for an individual/party is an endorsement of the entire package of policies or a rejection of the entire packages of the policies of other individuals/parties.
Well, if you think I'm making that mistake, I'm not making myself very clear. I've said, yes, coalition partners have to make compromises. But politics isn't just about about the horse trading behind closed doors, it's also about the wishes of the people of the people who put the traders behind the doors. That's something Clegg is learning the hard way.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
Waiting until the 5 years are up to 'punish' them for doing the wrong thing isn't very effective if you haven't said, in the intervening 5 years, what you're unhappy about.
WTF? One minute you are moaning about moral outrage and the next telling us we should be writing green ink letters to our MPs.
Edited to say sorry for the double post - I'll shut up now.
[ 02. June 2014, 22:37: Message edited by: Grokesx ]
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I've no idea what a green ink letter is, but if it's something nasty I don't recommend it. I'm not calling for general moral outrage about people being traitors, I'm talking about specific reactions to specific policies.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've no idea what a green ink letter is, but if it's something nasty I don't recommend it.
People who are in a position to receive random communications from members of the parish e.g. priests, MPs, etc, find that the more eccentric and vehemently expressed a point of view a person has the more that person is drawn to green ballpoint as a medium of expression.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
Sorry, how exactly did he 'play the system'? Voter fraud?
I'd say that relying on voters who favour one set of policies to get you into a position of holding the balance of power and then form a government implementing radically different policies is playing the system.
That's basic politics.
Remember the Oldham East Election Court? One of the things that court case reaffirmed in law is that politicians are allowed to tell bare faced lies in their manifestos, speeches and broadcasts. They can say whatever the hell they want about what they will do when elected, knowing that every word of it is untrue. They are also allowed to tell equally shameless lies about their opponents' intentions. There is not a single piece of legislation, tort or common law to prohibit a politician from telling lies in their promises in order to get elected, while fully intending to do the opposite.
What they cannot do is tell lies about an opponent's character.
Convincing voters that there is something wrong with deceiving them in order to win elections, and that they would never stoop so low, is one of the easier lies politicians tell.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
There is not a single piece of legislation, tort or common law to prohibit a politician from telling lies in their promises in order to get elected, while fully intending to do the opposite.
How would you bring a case? And don't the voters do the judging? Oh, sorry, I forgot, on this thread voting isn't actually part of politics at all.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
Oh, sorry, I forgot, on this thread voting isn't actually part of politics at all.
If that's a dig at me, it's pretty much the opposite of what I said. The point has been that voting isn't the sum total of politics.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ronald Binge
Shipmate
# 9002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I may be the only person in the country that thinks this, but it's my considered view that the present coalition has been the best administration the country has had for well over a generation. It's been far better than any of the single party administrations I've experienced as an adult.
There has also been far less of the excitable journalistic hype about who's rising and falling etc etc etc than we've become used to. The Major and Brown eras were particularly bad on that account.
If we could vote for it to continue, I'd prefer it to any of the other options we'll be offered next year.
I envy the Irish for having a proper electoral system and still detest the majority of my fellow country persons for voting against electoral reform in the referendum. Yes, what we were offered was nothing like as good, but I cannot respect the intellectual or political integrity of anyone who advocates first past the post - particularly when all our lives we've seen what it delivers.
Funny enough Enoch, as a life-long Liberal in British politics, I would agree with you regarding the Liberal Conservative coalition. Most of my Labour supporting friends in London vehemently disagree with me on this, and claim they viscerally hate the Lib Dems for joining the Coalition, but then again they are so tribally Labour that they never would have voted for them in the first place.
As for the Irish voting system of PR-Single Transferable Vote in multi-seat constituencies, as I am no longer involved in party politics in Ireland I think it is the best of all electoral systems. Imagine the recent European elections in Britain if the buffoons of UKIP had to actually campaign for votes instead of hiding behind an electoral list. It would have been closer to the local elections in reality.
Posts: 477 | From: Brexit's frontline | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
