UK election thread

[213374U]

Boring.

 

Btw you're not peaceful. You're involved in two wars at the moment. Its just that all the shooting and killing is not happening in your back yard.

Yeah, pretty much like during "Pax Romana" and "Pax Britannica", and yet those periods are considered by and large relatively peaceful. Consider the first half of the 20th century (and to a lesser extent, the second half), for some context on industrial era militarism and "peace". You can also compare daily casualties in Iraq with violent deaths in Mexico, for some additional perspective on current "wars".

 

I doubt you can find any period in human history that's absolutely devoid of violent conflict.

[Walsingham]

You people act as though there's any discernible difference between the policies of major UK parties.

It's a luxury of living in a peaceful state.

 

Boring.

 

Btw you're not peaceful. You're involved in two wars at the moment. Its just that all the shooting and killing is not happening in your back yard.

 

We're very peaceful at home. Exvluding town centres at weekends, and public transport at any time.

[Raithe]

Although the nation is peaceful, we do tend to keep having troops sent out to help others in peace-keeping situations.

 

There was something like only a single year of the entire 20th century where no British soldiers were killed somewhere in the world..

Most of the post-WW2 era was the mix of UN "peace-keeping" around the world and Irish troubles related..

[RPGmasterBoo]

Boring.

 

Btw you're not peaceful. You're involved in two wars at the moment. Its just that all the shooting and killing is not happening in your back yard.

Yeah, pretty much like during "Pax Romana" and "Pax Britannica", and yet those periods are considered by and large relatively peaceful. Consider the first half of the 20th century (and to a lesser extent, the second half), for some context on industrial era militarism and "peace". You can also compare daily casualties in Iraq with violent deaths in Mexico, for some additional perspective on current "wars".

 

I doubt you can find any period in human history that's absolutely devoid of violent conflict.

 

You're right of course, but that's really not what I was replying to.

I was just pointing out that the internal peace UK enjoys is dearly bought and like everything else in politics comes at someone else's expense.

 

On that note I really believe that politicians of EU countries, UK amongst them are doing a great job of squandering this "peaceful" period by wallowing in the muck of day to day parliamentary politics and stupidly following the US in its over-extended conquest wars while ignoring the need for an a real EU security policy. The only gains in that area so far have been bullying half-dead Balkan states.

[Walsingham]

Brown has announced he is going to resign, although given his track record he may always go back on his word.

 

Can someone explain how two parties with a poor showing may come to form the next government? It's a bloody stitch up. It's not as if bloc negotiation is even going to work. Because with such a finely balanced parliament I think we may actually see MPs doing their jobs and voting as relatively independent characters, not just the obedient animals of the whips. So a paper coalition could result in serious fractures.

 

Aside: can someone explain how - with alternative voting and single transferrable voting - teh voter is able to commit themselves fully to a single party? Because from what I've been reading there's a persistent trend to shuffle support around. Which means I might regard the libdems as a very very distant second to my main choice, but they end up hoovering up my 'vote' quite easily. Forgive me if I'm being thick.

[Monte Carlo]

Look at the UK election map. England is this big blue blob with a bit of red in London and a couple of red scars across the northeast and northwest (i.e. Labour susbsidy-junkie heartlands). By the beloved AV or PR systems, the Tories would be the single biggest party in England.

 

The Nu-Lab devolution project is now reaping it's bitter harvest with no English parliament. The 'progressive' (guffaw) Coalition of Losers will need the Labour and Libdems (still not enough seats) augmented by the Celtic nationalist fringe. The price? Even more pork-barreling in Scotland, Wales and NI (like they don't get enough already) and more economic pain for the powerhouse (London and the SE). Who should, by rights, be Tory-led.

 

Let the Libdems get into bed with Zanu NuLabour and watch the English electorate punish them brutally at the ballot box at the next, inevitable, General Election (in 12-18 months time). Sadly, the cost of this will be our economy as the left continue to strangle business, raise tax and protect their special interest groups in the north and the celtic fringe.

 

Am seriously considering emigration, this is the 1970's all over again but worse.

[Monte Carlo]

Incredible.

 

Here at the Schloss Monte I am pouring myself a very stiff drink and settling down the watch this awful melodrama play out.

 

Then I'm off for tinned food and hunting rifles.

[Walsingham]

As I said before I was already considering emigration, but that's mainly because Canada sounds awesome, and I've been offered work there.

 

EDIT: I was appalled, but not surprised to discover that the Prime Minister couldn't be arsed to sing the National Anthem on Saturday. Can you imagine any other antional leader throwing a strop on remembrance day? What a collosal **** the man is.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Walsingham

[Monte Carlo]

Just saw Dr John Reid on the telly, the man is a hoary old Scots Marxist with whom I would probably disagree on the precise date of Christmas.

 

But.

 

He was deeply impressive and non-partisan about this, thinks that this stitch-up will rebound on Labour big-time. He showed himself to be a true parliamentarian, and to their credit there are voices in Labour who are saying similar things. Labour need a couple of years in opposition (for me five hundred wouldn't be enough but that's not the point).

[Walsingham]

One of the few things I agreed with my high school politics teacher on was that ANY party in power for more than three cycles becomes corrupt and self-serving. Some say that FPTP causes this to happen too often, but the saving grace is that when we do change we stick it to the outgoing party with a vengeance. AND we get to directly choose who goes. My own constituency lost the incumbent Labour MP who was a Brown loyalist. The MP would NEVER have been ditched by the party apparatus.

 

Anyway, I was struck by a link to the landless peasants party. Thought you might like them, Monte.

 

EDIT: I was required to do a profile of John Reid a few years ago. He has his flaws as an organiser and manager, but he's not short of balls. I think I'd like him if we met. Of course he'd think I was a terrible arse.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Walsingham

[RPGmasterBoo]

One of the few things I agreed with my high school politics teacher on was that ANY party in power for more than three cycles becomes corrupt and self-serving.

 

Uh, they're corrupt and self serving before they come into power. Especially the leadership. The only purpose of a party is to win elections. After that its: not to lose the next elections. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. I'm 22 and one voting was enough for me to decide that they wont be needing my participation in the future. As Emma Goldman said:

[Walsingham]

One of the few things I agreed with my high school politics teacher on was that ANY party in power for more than three cycles becomes corrupt and self-serving.

 

Uh, they're corrupt and self serving before they come into power. Especially the leadership. The only purpose of a party is to win elections. After that its: not to lose the next elections. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. I'm 22 and one voting was enough for me to decide that they wont be needing my participation in the future. As Emma Goldman said:

[RPGmasterBoo]

One of the few things I agreed with my high school politics teacher on was that ANY party in power for more than three cycles becomes corrupt and self-serving.

 

Uh, they're corrupt and self serving before they come into power. Especially the leadership. The only purpose of a party is to win elections. After that its: not to lose the next elections. Everything else is smoke and mirrors. I'm 22 and one voting was enough for me to decide that they wont be needing my participation in the future. As Emma Goldman said:

[213374U]

Not all MPs are corrupt, as shocking as that may sound. Many are, but we do very well in this country for the most part. Or we used to, before it became acceptable for disgraced weasels like Mandelson to be brought back into CABINET (ffs).

 

Asserting that all politicians are corrupt indulges a poisonous prejudice that serves no purpose but to discourage honourable people from becoming politicians, or participating in politics. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy and I'm genuinely surprised to hear it coming from you.

I find this opinion holds the most water in countries where you vote for the person instead of the party, which increases actual accountability and makes MPs think more of their electorate, as that's what can make or break their careers. In theory.

 

In places like Spain where each ballot is a closed party list full of names you've probably never heard before, voting becomes akin to rooting for a football team; pro politicians are mostly just party apparatchiks whose essential talent is self-promotion. It's under this setup that Boo's statements reflect reality the most.

[RPGmasterBoo]

In places like Spain where each ballot is a closed party list full of names you've probably never heard before, voting becomes akin to rooting for a football team; pro politicians are mostly just party apparatchiks whose essential talent is self-promotion. It's under this setup that Boo's statements reflect reality the most.

 

Which would be the same one we have here. The lists aren't even fixed, so the party isn't obliged to give those people seats in parliament. The plurality voting system is in theory a better way to pick MP's, no doubt about it.

[Gorgon]

One of the few things I agreed with my high school politics teacher on was that ANY party in power for more than three cycles becomes corrupt and self-serving. Some say that FPTP causes this to happen too often, but the saving grace is that when we do change we stick it to the outgoing party with a vengeance.

Isn't that rather a universal law of politics. One gets fed up with the old and stupidly thinks that the new is going to be better. I don't know why Labour decided to name him crown prince to begin with, he obviously has no knack for the popularity game, and by all accounts he was doing a good job as chancellor of... something or other - finance minister.

[Humodour]

Brown has announced he is going to resign

 

Good. What about Mendalson?

 

Can someone explain how two parties with a poor showing may come to form the next government? It's a bloody stitch up.

 

Because collectively they had less of a poor showing than the third significant party, hence represent more of (and indeed the majority, possibly with one or two small parties) of voters. Could you explain to me how it could make any kind of sense for the third significant party to form government instead without the support of anyone else? It wouldn't.

 

I'd prefer a LibDem-Conservative coalition for at least one term (depending on how the Conservatives perform) too, but not to the extent that I'd start blaming democracy if it didn't happen.

[Walsingham]

Oh, ok. I see what you mean. And yes, that's one reason why I hate prop rep. I thought it always worked the way you described. And I can see why you feel the way you do, up to a point.

 

Mandelson is now a Lord. Current political theory is that he can only be removed from politics by a wooden stake through his heart, but since he clearly has shrunk that organ to the size of a lentil I can only recommend a course of penicillin.

[Humodour]

Oh, ok. I see what you mean. And yes, that's one reason why I hate prop rep.

 

But as you can clearly see (since the UK is FPTP, and so is Canada), this issue has nothing to do with prop rep in particular.

 

The Conservatives can try to govern as a minority, as they do in Canada (with reasonable success).

 

Mandelson is now a Lord. Current political theory is that he can only be removed from politics by a wooden stake through his heart, but since he clearly has shrunk that organ to the size of a lentil I can only recommend a course of penicillin.

 

Uhg.

[Walsingham]

Oh, ok. I see what you mean. And yes, that's one reason why I hate prop rep.

 

But as you can clearly see (since the UK is FPTP, and so is Canada), this issue has nothing to do with prop rep in particular.

 

 

What? We just had it explained by Numbers and Boo* that severing the direct connection between voter and individual as with pure prop rep creates perfect conditions for corruption. I'm not saying we can't have corruption here, but FPTP means at the end of teh day that anyone, including the prime minister, can be removed by a local movement of a few thousand people.

 

Speaking of which I'd like to know why no-one suggested a 'suicide squad' be dispatched to Brown's seat to vote the little weasel out.

 

 

*Great name for a firm of lawyers

[Gorgon]

Stealing all the seats because you got 51 % of the votes is surely worse. You can scarcely even call it democratic. Proportional representation doesn't sever the link between voter and vote, it makes each vote count the same.

 

 

I see no connection with corruption whatsoever. Corruption happens to officials who aren't accountable. Favouritism, nepotism. etc. creates a culture which perpetuates itself.

Edited May 11, 2010 by Gorgon

[Morgoth]

So the LibDems now are negotiating with Labour, the two election losers, probably building a coalition. And the guy who nobody wants probably remains PM. That's democracy a'la Britain.

 

Hahaha.

[HoonDing]

So the LibDems now are negotiating with Labour, the two election losers, probably building a coalition. And the guy who nobody wants probably remains PM.

Thats nothing compared to Belgium, bro. Belgium is ruled by the minority.

[Humodour]

Oh, ok. I see what you mean. And yes, that's one reason why I hate prop rep.

 

But as you can clearly see (since the UK is FPTP, and so is Canada), this issue has nothing to do with prop rep in particular.

 

 

What? We just had it explained by Numbers and Boo* that severing the direct connection between voter and individual as with pure prop rep creates perfect conditions for corruption. I'm not saying we can't have corruption here, but FPTP means at the end of teh day that anyone, including the prime minister, can be removed by a local movement of a few thousand people.

 

I take it all three of you missed the posts earlier in this thread where myself and (I believe) Zoraptor pointed out that prop rep in no way requires group voting tickets. Sigh.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Stealing all the seats because you got 51 % of the votes is surely worse. You can scarcely even call it democratic. Proportional representation doesn't sever the link between voter and vote, it makes each vote count the same.

 

I see no connection with corruption whatsoever. Corruption happens to officials who aren't accountable. Favouritism, nepotism. etc. creates a culture which perpetuates itself.

 

You pointed out the inherent corruption on your own. An MP in the proportional system isn't really accountable because he owes his position to the party that put him on the list, not to the voters. The average voter is not likely to know anyone beyond the top 10-20 names in the list, with everyone else on it being party fodder. So, the voters who supposedly picked him/her likely have no idea who they actually picked. On the other hand he/she has no idea who his voters are, since everything about his political career developed through internal party politics - which is how he got on the list in the first place.

 

@Walsingham: I dunno, Earthworm Jim says all lawers go to hell.