|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
No, it's not really a matter of opinion. I know that you'd love to just implement stuff based on "feelings", but that's a pretty moronic way to go at things.
I'll concede that it's slightly less shitty - but it stands that, for how little it is less shitty, it's vastly more complicated. Point being, the UK didn't vote to get rid of FPTP, they voted to not replace it with AV.
Your assessment of the majors is correct, and that would happen in either case. If you offer a credible and demonstrably better method though, that might not matter that much. Especially in the current climate, where the failures of the current system are blatantly and painfully obvious, and the majors not having much (if any) credibility left.
Edit: And i actually think that it is good that the vote was clear on what FPTP would be replaced with, as opposed to having the same shit as the brexit referendum where everyone can imagine what the result would mean.
Obviously, no disagreement here from me, good point.
That being said, with no "choice" in the matter, for example for STV, it still only means that people don't want AV (as in, have multiple options, even if baked into one question).
|
Northern Ireland25539 Posts
On April 03 2019 17:49 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2019 13:48 m4ini wrote:
Quite the stretch to argue that people are fine with a shitty system because they didn't want to replace it with an equally shitty, but more complicated system. I'd like to point out that question on the Ballot paper wasn't "is FPTP shitty" or "should we get rid of FPTP" but "Should we replace FPTP with AV: Yes/No".
Something all major parties rallied against. So, colour me surprised, both tories and labour campaigned against replacing it, and it indeed wasn't replaced. Gasp. Whether it’s equally as shitty is your opinion.I think it’s better.The majors were against it because the current system is more in their interest, any kind of preferential system would cost them seats.
Regardless of their campaigning, we still voted against changing it, for some reason. I don't think voters were swayed by whether the two parties were for keeping FPTP, as to their aggregate rationale for keeping it I have no bloody idea outside of speculation.
The benefits are pretty obvious, enfranchising a much larger amount of our votes and having a Parliament that represents that better. I don't even think the cited negatives are that negative. Yes, mandates are harder and it's harder govern sure, is that necessarily even a good thing anyway? We spend far too much money and energy every election cycle or two in this country having either one of the Tories or Labour basically do the opposite of the former guys, education gets a new curriculum every bloody time these days so the new incumbent party can be seen to be doing something. You'd have less of that push and pull and flip with a more diverse parliament, even if it is a bit slower to get things done. At least places that utilise some form of this such as the United States have that volatility mitigated by the clear separation of powers, blocking mechanisms and staggered elections.
I agree with m4ini that it should have been about going to a non-FPTP system or not rather than having it be FPTP or AV. The Brexit vote was at least a binary in that sense, although I think the 'what will happen after' part should have been on that one, or at least discussed much better in the media.
|
I am genuinely curious what people think is wrong with instant runoff.
I get why you'd oppose it if you're in favour of FPTP, but if you're not, it really does resolve the majority of the issues. It's quite resistant to tactical voting and it doesn't require multiple rounds of votes. I can see that it's complex to count, but for the actual voter at the ballot box it's surprisingly straightforward.
It does fail a number of tests (as does every system), and it's not the best in every case depending on what criteria are important in the context, but "barely better than FPTP" seems like plain hyperbole.
|
Northern Ireland25539 Posts
On April 03 2019 20:47 Belisarius wrote:
I am genuinely curious what people think is wrong with instant runoff.
I get why you'd oppose it if you're in favour of FPTP, but if you're not, it really does resolve the majority of the issues. It's quite resistant to tactical voting and it doesn't require multiple rounds of votes. I can see that it's complex to count, but for the actual voter at the ballot box it's surprisingly straightforward.
It does fail a number of tests (as does every system), and it's not the best in every case depending on what criteria are important in the context, but "barely better than FPTP" seems like plain hyperbole.
I don't mind it, it seems pretty similar to the Single Transferable Vote we use here, unless my brief skimming was really sloppy.
Northern Ireland is a weird case though, it's not a standard polity in how its legislature is composed as a legacy of the auld Troubles, so we're a completely dysfunctional basket case but that's really nothing that is attributable to the base voting system we use.
|
Another tactful video from the radicalized knobheads that our countries are sending to the middle-east. On the same day, Iain Duncan Smith tells the BBC that Corbyn is Marxist whose only purpose is to harm the UK. I'm no fan of Corbyn, but this rhetoric is beyond moronic and it's what leads to videos like the one above, an MP murdered a few years ago and another goon arrested recently for planning to attack an MP with a machete.
|
Well... Soldiers?
The best and the brightest normally don't sign up for frontline duty. Studying right wing extremism in the military is something that is seldomly done for good reason.
Even in our mandatory conscription army they have obvious trouble seeding out the hardcore extremists... So the smart ones can still obviously do it whiteot a problem, unless they fuck up big time on social media.
|
Well... Soldiers?
That's quite the stretch. I understand that i served in a different army, and we absolutely have dicknuggets in that one - but in all the years i served (and i served as a mudcrawler/Panzergrenadier), i have not once seen someone shoot a picture of Merkel. If you would've said "well, humongous wangleborks" (trying to not overdo the cursing), absolutely. And they absolutely deserve a dishonourable discharge, potentially with following trial. But that has nothing to do with "Soldiers".
I'm no fan of Corbyn, but this rhetoric is beyond moronic and it's what leads to videos like the one above, an MP murdered a few years ago and another goon arrested recently for planning to attack an MP with a machete.
A pedophile, homophobe boy-groomer, no less. But he isn't a goon, he's a neo nazi, and he more specifically clarified that he was going to kill her by going for the jugular in the first strike.
I mean.. I absolutely understand that people are unhappy with politicians, and i rally against them myself quite vocally as well. But there's a difference between being pissed off at politicians and thinking they should resign if they can't put country above party, and the usual "traitor", "betrayer", etc that is commonly used (usually by rightwingers) to describe politicians who dare to disagree with their view as to how brexit should be delivered.
Maybe it's just me, because of german roots, but "betrayal" and "treason" were serious acts punishable by death, and that only changed barely 20 years ago in the UK (up to 1998 for treason the mandatory punishment was death). Nobody should be surprised that some backwards dipshit takes the statement at face value and decides to play executioner for charges of treason. We all learnt at some point or another that treason is one of worst criminal acts that you can commit (regardless of we agree with it or not). So much so that until 1870, in the UK a traitor was hanged, drawn and quartered. Because one alone didn't do the crime justice, you had to kill the person multiple times and then make sure.
A convicted traitor was fastened to a hurdle, or wooden panel, and drawn by horse to the place of execution, where he was then hanged (almost to the point of death), emasculated, disembowelled, beheaded, and quartered (chopped into four pieces). The traitor's remains were often displayed in prominent places across the country, such as London Bridge. For reasons of public decency, women convicted of high treason were instead burned at the stake.
The severity of the sentence was measured against the seriousness of the crime.
I mean.. I do have a temper problem sometimes, but never would it even cross my mind to suggest someone is "betraying" or "a traitor". The same way i don't call people randomly child molesters, or rapists.
|
Northern Ireland25539 Posts
If some squaddies want to shot a picture of a guy who, if nothing else would be more reticent to send to them into a needless war then go for it, seems utterly idiotic to me.
I don’t like the term traitor myself either. If one is to go overboard and use the term, if anyone is I’d wager it’s the people who were happy to take a punt on this whole sorry endeavour, knowing they themselves would be insulated if shit did hit the fan.
|
Lol, i just realised that you're from northern ireland, i've always read your name as "Wombat_Netherlands". Slighly off topic, but not much too add to your argument.
Kabul seems to be pretty safe though, if you got nothing else on your mind. As a sidenote, the outcome of said shooting isn't actually impressive either.
|
Isn't the effects of when a mass of people adopts a language that dehumanizes another group pretty well documented? In fact, 'betraying' and 'treason' isn't exclusive to the far right anymore but is heard from otherwise ordinary disgruntled brexiteers.
|
On April 04 2019 19:04 Longshank wrote:
Isn't the effects of when a mass of people adopts a language that dehumanizes another group pretty well documented? In fact, 'betraying' and 'treason' isn't exclusive to the far right anymore but is heard from otherwise ordinary disgruntled brexiteers.
Well yes and no.
There's a bit of a paradox. Yes, as a german, i'm pretty familiar (though not first hand) with what can happen if you dehumanise "your enemy" or "the opposition", and indeed i'm an avid opponent to said practice regardless of when it pops up (even in more complex contexts like drone warfare).
That being said, it's the same situation in the US where the president and his minions try to dehumanise migrants etc, though there, people indeed fight back.
In the UK, people just shrug off Daily Mail headlines as "well they're the daily mail, what else would they do". Baffling to me, but what do i know.
|
Northern Ireland25539 Posts
On April 04 2019 20:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On April 04 2019 19:04 Longshank wrote:
Isn't the effects of when a mass of people adopts a language that dehumanizes another group pretty well documented? In fact, 'betraying' and 'treason' isn't exclusive to the far right anymore but is heard from otherwise ordinary disgruntled brexiteers. Well yes and no. There's a bit of a paradox. Yes, as a german, i'm pretty familiar (though not first hand) with what can happen if you dehumanise "your enemy" or "the opposition", and indeed i'm an avid opponent to said practice regardless of when it pops up (even in more complex contexts like drone warfare). That being said, it's the same situation in the US where the president and his minions try to dehumanise migrants etc, though there, people indeed fight back. In the UK, people just shrug off Daily Mail headlines as "well they're the daily mail, what else would they do". Baffling to me, but what do i know.
Haha I bloody wish I was Dutch, I'd have a less irritatingly broken political system/culture and a much less awful accent.
I think regarding the Daily Mail etc, we do and we don't to a degree, and I think that will change moving forward, possibly for the worse. Under normal circumstances we do normally fight back against such things, it's just a combination of Brexit hogging the issue limelight at present, plus the US and the Trump freakshow gets a ton of attention.
The vague left here are more concerned with austerity than anything else consistently, Brexit obviously as well although there are some on the left who aren't fans of the EU so it's not united that way. I preferred just largely ignoring the likes of the Daily Mail as a cohort that you're not going to change minds on and just campaign on what you do want separately, or independent of those kind of outlets.
I think it's a pretty intractable thing and it's just getting worse and worse worldwide. If you ignore certain things they'll just fester and fester, if you properly go after them you don't win people around you just fragment your country into camps who end up just shouting pointlessly at each other over the internet and eventually in real life.
I'm a complete politics nerd and I largely just ignore the internet as much as I can these days as it's just too toxic and combative, bit of a shame and if you'd told young me that I'd yearn for simpler times where George W Bush and Fox News were as bad as it gets I'd have told myself that I'm a lunatic.
This dehumanising process just extends outwards and outwards more and more, where vague political positions become bywords for the enemy. The left, the right, Brexiteers, Remain(Remoaners), everybody plays this game now and I'm bloody sick of it.
The internet has made Machiavellian divide and rule exponentially more effective as now it needs no top-down input whatsoever, the populace themselves sub-divides all on their own.
|
Nothing to add there, i don't think.
It's just sad for people like me and similar, who don't fit on either side of the spektrum. I assume, that's why i tend to gravity towards people like Clarke, Letwin, Boles - these are people i can identify with, at least to some degree currently. I'm not long enough in the UK to make an absolutely informed decision, but they seem reasonable at least for the moment.
It's the reasonable part that is missing, everywhere. On both sides. Sure you can cheer for "your team", sure you can have dreams about the (from your perspective) perfect society regardless of reason, but once you arrive back in the real world, "reasonable" is of fundamental importance.
That's why i liked the term "independent progressive conservative" that Boles used to describe himself. There's nothing inherently wrong with being conservative, as mentioned multiple times i tend to have somewhat conservative views on certain issues. The problem arises if you're a conservative from around 1634, which is what the UK suffers from (mostly). There's also nothing wrong with being "left" or liberal. Except when you take it too far, like Corbyn does. I suppose what i'm trying to say is that the spektrum in the UK is way too extreme.
As a good example is the AfD in germany, huge outcry when Mogg cited them - rightfully so btw. The hypocritical part is, that if you take the views of the AfD as a party, instead of certain (unarguably cunty) members of the AfD, you pretty much have the Tories. Almost literally.
edit: not trying to say that the AfD as a party in and of itself is okay - i was trying to say that the Tory party is too extreme in their conservatism.
|
On April 05 2019 03:57 m4ini wrote:
Nothing to add there, i don't think.
It's just sad for people like me and similar, who don't fit on either side of the spektrum. I assume, that's why i tend to gravity towards people like Clarke, Letwin, Boles - these are people i can identify with, at least to some degree currently. I'm not long enough in the UK to make an absolutely informed decision, but they seem reasonable at least for the moment.
It's the reasonable part that is missing, everywhere. On both sides. Sure you can cheer for "your team", sure you can have dreams about the (from your perspective) perfect society regardless of reason, but once you arrive back in the real world, "reasonable" is of fundamental importance.
That's why i liked the term "independent progressive conservative" that Boles used to describe himself. There's nothing inherently wrong with being conservative, as mentioned multiple times i tend to have somewhat conservative views on certain issues. The problem arises if you're a conservative from around 1634, which is what the UK suffers from (mostly). There's also nothing wrong with being "left" or liberal. Except when you take it too far, like Corbyn does. I suppose what i'm trying to say is that the spektrum in the UK is way too extreme.
As a good example is the AfD in germany, huge outcry when Mogg cited them - rightfully so btw. The hypocritical part is, that if you take the views of the AfD as a party, instead of certain (unarguably cunty) members of the AfD, you pretty much have the Tories. Almost literally.
edit: not trying to say that the AfD as a party in and of itself is okay - i was trying to say that the Tory party is too extreme in their conservatism.
I skimmed over the wiki article regarding Corbyn. I don't see any extreme views there. Nothing that stood out as radical far left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn#Positioning
I wouldn't vote for him due to his anti EU stance but apart from that he seems to have pretty reasonable positions that I could get behind in most cases.
|
Anyone that supports progressive taxation and reduced corporate welfare is painted as an extreme Marxist these days
|
Northern Ireland25539 Posts
On April 05 2019 03:57 m4ini wrote:
Nothing to add there, i don't think.
It's just sad for people like me and similar, who don't fit on either side of the spektrum. I assume, that's why i tend to gravity towards people like Clarke, Letwin, Boles - these are people i can identify with, at least to some degree currently. I'm not long enough in the UK to make an absolutely informed decision, but they seem reasonable at least for the moment.
It's the reasonable part that is missing, everywhere. On both sides. Sure you can cheer for "your team", sure you can have dreams about the (from your perspective) perfect society regardless of reason, but once you arrive back in the real world, "reasonable" is of fundamental importance.
That's why i liked the term "independent progressive conservative" that Boles used to describe himself. There's nothing inherently wrong with being conservative, as mentioned multiple times i tend to have somewhat conservative views on certain issues. The problem arises if you're a conservative from around 1634, which is what the UK suffers from (mostly). There's also nothing wrong with being "left" or liberal. Except when you take it too far, like Corbyn does. I suppose what i'm trying to say is that the spektrum in the UK is way too extreme.
As a good example is the AfD in germany, huge outcry when Mogg cited them - rightfully so btw. The hypocritical part is, that if you take the views of the AfD as a party, instead of certain (unarguably cunty) members of the AfD, you pretty much have the Tories. Almost literally.
edit: not trying to say that the AfD as a party in and of itself is okay - i was trying to say that the Tory party is too extreme in their conservatism.
Wash your mouth out with soap young man.
No, I get what you mean. I'm a fellow 'complicated' person politically, except quite far to left of you and I find it hard to fit in, often I don't even try anymore. I made a video criticising Labour's last electoral manifesto and some people were em, rather unhappy, even though I felt my points were reasonable (I'm against free university being expanded without radically reforming the system itself to fit the 21st century for example)
I think we have a horrendous problem not just here, but in most places in thinking politicians are terrible people if they disagree with us, good people if they agree with us. My personal stance is that most (not all) politicians are decent people with varying viewpoints in how to achieve a good society. It seems to annoy people a lot to be like this, or point out that, by and large with the education and backgrounds needed to be an MP, politicians could make much more money in private industry. Some have their noses in the trough but it's not the most lucrative trough open to the.
I think the Conservative party should absolutely go back a few hundred years personally, it would make them more palatable  Bring back some of the old-school paternalism where the rich were socially expected to give back to the society that made them. Way more preferable to austerity and tax breaks for the corporation anyway.
|
I skimmed over the wiki article regarding Corbyn. I don't see any extreme views there. Nothing that stood out as radical far left.
Go through his past, it's more interesting.
Anyone that supports progressive taxation and reduced corporate welfare is painted as an extreme Marxist these days
That's stupid. First of all, Corbyn absolutely describes himself as socialist. He praises Marx as "great economist" (and that Britain can learn from him). He's an avid admirer of Castro and Chavez. He jumped to defend and endorse McDonnell, selfproclaimed "unapologetic marxist". Not to mention that there's quite a bit more to him than "supporting taxation and reducing corporate welfare".
At the very least, there's no argument (not even by Corbyn) that he's a socialist. Not a social democrat, but socialist. If you look at the history (or current situation) of socialist run countries, you'll find that they're usually.. not really that great. Nor are they "fair" either, btw - just that usually the gap is way wider, and less people are rich and the rest shits on the streets. It's just an extremer outcome of what's happening here.
This is not even getting into his past, his blatant disregard for the truth on multiple documented occasions (most notably "stupid woman" and traingate), the blatant, unapologetic antisemitism. He's not a "left wing politician", he's extreme left of the spectrum. Did i mention that he absolutely wants to pull the UK out of NATO as well?
Wash your mouth out with soap young man.
I actually mean it. "Reasonable conservatism", or maybe "modern conservatism", or probably "secular conservatism" is what i'd use to describe me. Hard to explain.
I suppose, you could actually describe it as "center" too, but that's so muddy that it really doesn't mean jack especially in the UK.
Bring back some of the old-school paternalism where the rich were socially expected to give back to the society that made them.
Yeah, fuck equality. That's gonna fly.
Not that i'd agree with tax breaks for corporations or austerity unilaterally either. Although, i am not entirely opposed to either as well. Just the way "it's done" in the UK.
As a sidenote, i don't think politicians are horrible people. I said that they're doing a horrible job, and i find that self-evident.
It seems to annoy people a lot to be like this, or point out that, by and large with the education and backgrounds needed to be an MP, politicians could make much more money in private industry.
Yeah but it brings another, completely untackled problem with it. Tribalism. If you have politicians argue that "you don't act like you come from my elite university X, but the other elite university Y, look at yourself", then i have to wonder how much political influence these institutions actually have, and if that's healthy. It's just another one of these things stuck 300 years ago.
|
Northern Ireland25539 Posts
On April 05 2019 05:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I skimmed over the wiki article regarding Corbyn. I don't see any extreme views there. Nothing that stood out as radical far left.
Go through his past, it's more interesting. Show nested quote +Anyone that supports progressive taxation and reduced corporate welfare is painted as an extreme Marxist these days
That's stupid. First of all, Corbyn absolutely describes himself as socialist. He praises Marx as "great economist" (and that Britain can learn from him). He's an avid admirer of Castro and Chavez. He jumped to defend and endorse McDonnell, selfproclaimed "unapologetic marxist". Not to mention that there's quite a bit more to him than "supporting taxation and reducing corporate welfare". At the very least, there's no argument (not even by Corbyn) that he's a socialist. Not a social democrat, but socialist. If you look at the history (or current situation) of socialist run countries, you'll find that they're usually.. not really that great. Nor are they "fair" either, btw - just that usually the gap is way wider, and less people are rich and the rest shits on the streets. It's just an extremer outcome of what's happening here. This is not even getting into his past, his blatant disregard for the truth on multiple documented occasions (most notably "stupid woman" and traingate), the blatant, unapologetic antisemitism. He's not a "left wing politician", he's extreme left of the spectrum. Did i mention that he absolutely wants to pull the UK out of NATO as well? I actually mean it. "Reasonable conservatism", or maybe "modern conservatism", or probably "secular conservatism" is what i'd use to describe me. Hard to explain. I suppose, you could actually describe it as "center" too, but that's so muddy that it really doesn't mean jack especially in the UK. Show nested quote +Bring back some of the old-school paternalism where the rich were socially expected to give back to the society that made them. Yeah, fuck equality. That's gonna fly. Not that i'd agree with tax breaks for corporations or austerity unilaterally either. Although, i am not entirely opposed to either as well. Just the way "it's done" in the UK. As a sidenote, i don't think politicians are horrible people. I said that they're doing a horrible job, and i find that self-evident. Show nested quote + It seems to annoy people a lot to be like this, or point out that, by and large with the education and backgrounds needed to be an MP, politicians could make much more money in private industry. Yeah but it brings another, completely untackled problem with it. Tribalism. If you have politicians argue that "you don't act like you come from my elite university X, but the other elite university Y, look at yourself", then i have to wonder how much political influence these institutions actually have, and if that's healthy. It's just another one of these things stuck 300 years ago.
I was being facetious, I should have added a smiley or something. I have a few conservative values myself, people are complicated creatures which make ideological purity tests and tribalism a bit of a folly in my opinion.
I can’t say I’m a massive fan of paternalism of the wealthy, but I do find it preferable to ‘they earned their money in a vacuum’ exceptionalism. At least Cameron gave some lip service to those kind of ideas
|
On April 05 2019 05:34 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +Anyone that supports progressive taxation and reduced corporate welfare is painted as an extreme Marxist these days
That's stupid. First of all, Corbyn absolutely describes himself as socialist. He praises Marx as "great economist" (and that Britain can learn from him). He's an avid admirer of Castro and Chavez. He jumped to defend and endorse McDonnell, selfproclaimed "unapologetic marxist". Not to mention that there's quite a bit more to him than "supporting taxation and reducing corporate welfare". At the very least, there's no argument (not even by Corbyn) that he's a socialist. Not a social democrat, but socialist. If you look at the history (or current situation) of socialist run countries, you'll find that they're usually.. not really that great. Nor are they "fair" either, btw - just that usually the gap is way wider, and less people are rich and the rest shits on the streets. It's just an extremer outcome of what's happening here. This is not even getting into his past, his blatant disregard for the truth on multiple documented occasions (most notably "stupid woman" and traingate), the blatant, unapologetic antisemitism. He's not a "left wing politician", he's extreme left of the spectrum. Did i mention that he absolutely wants to pull the UK out of NATO as well?
How about you point me to an extreme left position in his platform instead of writing the history of muck raking?
As an aside since you brought it up for some reason, saying he is an unapologetic antisemite is not an opinion that you have reached yourself. It's manufactured hysteria that only exists because of what I've said in the previous post.
You couldn't have gotten from 'he expressed solidarity with Palestine' to 'he hates jews' without a lot of help. Just like you couldn't have gotten from seeing his positions to alluding that he wants to turn the UK into a Venezuela-type economy without a lot of help. Help that is always plentiful whenever a platform that stands a single hair left of center is threatening to move a penny from the top to the plebs.
|
It's also worth noting that Corbyn is kinda "ancient", your hard pressed to find an old leftist not somewhere expressing support for Castro and similar figures. You can call it delusional and willfull disbelieve of reality but it's not necessarily coming from a bad place.
And... Its not like the right wing is any better when it comes to this.
Its all moronic anyway, last i checked the UK's political caste wholeheartetly still support Saudi Arabia and sells them heavy duty weapons to slaughter people in Yemen (which the red cross calls worse than Syria)... So, well...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
