Jump to content

canarydan23

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    8,089

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by canarydan23

  7. Posted

    3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

    There is a fundamental failure of logic in the assumptions you are making. You say that the negotiation would weed out bad policies through negotiation. You think this would happen because a smaller party would be able to dilute some of the policies of a bigger party. Take as an example student tuition fees. The biggest party thinks students should pay full tuition fees, the smaller party thinks students should pay no student fees. They negotiate and agree on a policy of 50% fees paid by the students and 50% paid by the government. According to your logic this is the best outcome. The truth is you have no way of knowing whether this is the best outcome. But what we do now is that we now have a policy that voters of both the biggest party and the smallest party didn't vote for. And somehow you think that is more democratic???

    The fact is when parties negotiate they will have red lines on certain policies that they favour so much that they will not negotiate on. Again, you as a voter can't say whether it is a good policy or a bad policy until it has been tested in a real time implementation. You can't assume, as you are doing, that just because a policy has been negotiated by two parties that it is a better policy.

    Surely, as a gentleman of the left you are confident enough of your party's policies not to have them negotiated away?

    You really are dense. The very example you used as a hypothetical ACTUALLY HAPPENED. A lesser party in a coalition in 2010 fully abandoned a manifesto pledge to not raise tuition fees. There was no 50/50 agreement. 

    And good policy is far more likely to come out of robust negotiation between diverse groups, rather than policy borne from an echo chamber of like-minded politicians, which is the environment in which Tory and Labour manifestos are cooked up.

    As a gentleman of the left, I have no political party.

  8. Posted

    1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    No @canarydan23it's not a lack of faith.

    I meant it is a lack of faith from me in why I reached the conclusion I have regarding their apathy about electoral reform. I just don't think they're bright enough realise the implications and therefore won't care. They'll vote for who they would vote for regardless of whether PR was a manifesto pledge.

    And I can solemnly promise you that I NEVER assume everyone else is as intelligent as me!!!

    • Haha 1

  10. Posted

    17 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    @canarydan23 I truly wish I shared your faith in the British electorate. Sadly I don't.

    Having said that, I think and hope that in 20 years time it will look very different. Basically you just need to wait for my generation to die. I'm hoping to live long enough to see the day when you're right! 

     

    I think it's a lack of faith! They don't care enough or are informed enough about something that could have quite a monumental change in how our country works. So they'd just shrug their shoulders and say "meh". Look at the AV referendum, only 40% turned out, which does kind of give you an idea of how little they care about defending the status quo where electoral reform is concerned.

    Labour just needs to be the turkey that votes for Christmas and get it in their manifesto. Even Corbyn refused because he knew that a leftist seizing control of the Labour Party and winning an election was the only feasible way of having a majority quasi-socialist party in the UK. When it comes down to it, they're all about power and gaining as much of it as they can.

    Ironically, he was proven completely and utterly wrong. In fact, in 2017 under PR we would have seen a Corbyn government with the Lib Dems and Greens propping him up (and reigning in his more whack job ideas). It would probably have been quite a progressive government. Single market access, free movement of people, no collapse of the NI Assembly, no lockdown ****-ups at Number 10, no Boris Johnson, no Liz Truss and her disastrous mini budget, less lives lost in Covid, the British public witnessing that a more universally socialised economy (rather that just socialism for the rich) is actually beneficial meaning that the Overton Window shifted left and the Tories would be forced to adapt and trim their looney wing.

    What a different world we'd be living in but for FPTP.

  11. Posted

    I suspect when you get to around 5th-12th, a lot of the playoff odds are driven by fan confidence and them thinking, "We've got this" and chucking some money at their favourite bookie. I'd wager that there aren't as many Norwich fans doing that as fans of the other clubs in that list, despite our recent upturn.

  12. Posted

    29 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    Clegg's behaviour at that time will probably haunt the Lib Dems for years to come. 

    Your suggestion for the Labour manifesto would be music to the ears of the Conservative Party. I quite agree with you but it would effectively give us a referendum rather than an election. Sunak would snatch your hand off for that.

    The easiest advert ever - 

    Do you want to be like the Italians or the French or worse still, the Germans? 

    Sad to say but that would win an election for them. 

    I disagree, I don't think people care a huge amount. They are going to play those dirty tricks anyone, on topics that pique the public consciousness a lot more readily that electoral systems. Think Jimmy Saville, think defending terrorists, and he'll use your Italians, French, Germans line on sovereignty, using his pro-Brexit past to scare red wall voters.

    You're right, that is how the Tories would play it, but it wouldn't land. The ones it would land on will already be hoodwinked into voted the Tories for other issues more relevant to their daily lives. The ones concerned by it would also hear the simple mantra, equal votes for all. Whilst it won't be an accurate representation this year given the cluster**** that is the Tories, the general consensus is that 60% of all constituencies are considered "safe". 

    The idea that everyone's trip to the ballot box means something would have wide appeal. Also, simple soundbites like "Equal Votes For All" and "One Person, One Vote" would cut through the public consciousness far more effectively than "Change is bad! We're becoming more like the French!"

    And like I said, it still wouldn't register above the economy, NHS, schools, national security, immigration, etc, in what the public considers the most important issue of an election.

  13. Posted

    12 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    Thanks, my memory is playing tricks with me. What that referendum and the lead up to it did show is that it will be an incredibly difficult thing to change. Having said that, the political demographics of the country will be completely different in 20 years time. 

    It only went to a referendum because that was the only route the Lib Dems saw to making a change as a coalition partner, and the Tories saw it as the only way to get the Lib Dems on board but not give them the electoral reform they wanted. Nick Clegg should have held firm and pushed for all out PR, which would have been a much easier sell to the electorate; however, one look at those ministerial limousines and he was putty in Cameron's hands.

    I don't think these sorts of changes should be put to a referendum. Labour should have the cajones to make it a manifesto commitment and implement another Great Reform Act that introduces PR and disbands the Lords for a representative second chamber.

    • Like 2

  15. Posted

    1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

    We had a referendum in 2011 and the vote against PR was 68/32.

    No we didn't.

    It was FPTP vs AV; PR was not on the ballot paper. AV is overly-complicated and has the potential to actually be LESS representative than FPTP. I despise FPTP but still voted for that over AV.

  16. Posted

    8 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

    Incredulous that almost every poster thinks their retirement income is a problem that someone else has to solve for them. You have to take responsibility for your own life, make sensible life choices and stop depending on nanny to bail you out. Is it any wonder that indigenous  Brits are falling behind in all measures of success. 

    Incredulous that someone who can't even tie their own shoelaces thinks they're qualified to talk about anything other than Thomas the Tank Engine.

  19. Posted · Edited by canarydan23

    1 hour ago, Rock The Boat said:

    And yet Dan, you are an advocate for a PR system in which it is a given that a party will negotiate away policies regardless of what they said to the voters to earn their votes. How do you tie politician's hands while allowing them to make private deals with other parties?

    Do you know anything about anything?

    In FPTP, the winning party, often with barely more than a quarter of votes from eligible voters, is able to implement 100% of their manifesto (they don't, of course, manifestos are tools to win votes and largely torn up once the keys to Number 10 have been seized). Under PR, a party that achieved 30% of the vote would only be able to implement some of their manifesto and would have to make concessions to a party that whose manifesto was appealing enough to get say, 10% of voters to vote for them, plus some concessions to another party whose manifesto appealed to 15% of voters.

    The negotiation process would weed out bad policies from the most successful party and accommodate the better policies of the parties with fewer votes. You're likely to end up with more universally-appealing policy and coalition partners who can hold their fellow governing parties feet over the fire with regards to their pre-election pledges.

    Instead, we suffer idiotic, mediocre politicians (I know they appeal to you, but we're not all so easily duped I'm afraid) who can pretty much do as they please between elections, regardless of the promises made to the electorate in which more people stayed at home than voted for the winning party and considerably more people who did vote did not choose the party that governs them.

     

    • Like 4

  20. Posted · Edited by canarydan23

    1 hour ago, horsefly said:

    You've missed the point. Caroline Cossey was born with a biology that did not determine her gender. The point is she is a woman. Would you treat as not a woman?

    I think you've missed the point, or at least you've made one that doesn't stack up.

    Intersex exists as a term because sex is binary. A problem within the womb assigns the baby with biological characteristics of both sexes. That doesn't stop sex being binary in exactly the same way that a baby born with a missing leg does not stop humans as a species being four-limbed bipeds.

    Caroline Cossey was born an intersex male. The genetic condition she had was is exclusive to males. She is a trans woman, has lived her gender for more than two years, undergone medical treatment and reassignment surgery and absolutely should be recognised now as a woman. She's not someone who just woke up one day and decided "I'm a woman" and demanded to be treated as such.  However, had she chosen the athletic route for a career, I would oppose her inclusion in female-only events. And this is in a similar fashion to the hypothetical baby born with a missing leg; one day prosthetics may improve to such an extent that people with them are faster than those who compete in the Olympics. I would oppose their inclusion in Olympic events.

    This topic could have it's own thread to be fair, thought I doubt it would last very long. We should probably get back to what a total **** Rishi Sunak is.

  22. Posted · Edited by canarydan23

    I agree with Sunak in that it is important to recognise that there are two distinct sexes and that it isn't hateful or bigoted to allow that distinction to influence certain things; essentially participation in sports and access to female-only spaces. Nor is it hateful to say that a man is a male and a woman is a female. If that wasn't the case, there would be no need for the term "trans". There is absolutely nothing up with people becoming trans, those with genuine gender dysphoria have my sympathy, but there is something wrong with exposing a male-body in a female changing room, having a male in a women's refuge or allowing male-born people to compete in women's sports.

    However, despite having that opinion, bringing the topic up in the presence of a bereaved parent of a trans child is ****ing sick. And to not just turn around and say, "Whilst I still believe my point was valid, I accept it was not the right arena with which to bring it up, and therefore I offer my apologies for any hurt caused to the parents or loved ones of Brianna Ghey", is indicative of a man who is borderline pathological in his outlook.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

  23. Posted

    8 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

    What a nonsense post!

    But then so was seal clubbing and gun laws.

    I doubt you bought a ticket. Did you. Just felt disconnected on behalf of someone who did.

    It's patently clear empathy is a pretty alien concept to you.

    I'll leave it there though, he's busted out an exclamation mark, BP must be up. Best get yourself a horlicks and your journal and get jotting. That way you can use some of this stuff months and years in the future.

    At least I hope its how you remember these things. It'd probably be a bit sadder if it actually leaves that much of an impression on you that it's seared into your memory. I couldn't remember what you were talking about initially with the match being moved/watch on TV comment and I was the one who was grumbling about it. Let it go, good for the old BP.

  24. Posted

    12 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

    Clubbing seals and gun laws, you’re  rum un Dan. 
    So you think this is an example of a disconnect between you and our club. Like when they wouldn’t move a game because you wanted to watch something else on tv. Or when they wouldn’t sack Farke. Or when they did sack Farke.

    Do you ever feel connected?

    I think you ought to get back to your journal old boy, plenty of content for it in this thread. At least only police detectives, the CPS and a jury will ever be subjected to having to read it. Will the EDP journalist be added to it, or is it just PinkUn posters that get your knickers in a twist?

    You really should find something more worthy to irk you. Like, maybe an organisation with a turnover of tens of millions of pounds denying a lifesaving charity the opportunity to earn a few hundred quid?

  25. Posted

    18 minutes ago, nutty nigel said:

    My judgement is as that this thread was a godsend for those who have nothing to say when we win. It attracted them like bees round a honeypot. Then you turn up and go straight up the pole about clubbing seals. Haven’t seen you this agitated since the wicked club didn’t move a fixture so that you could watch something else on TV. 
    What is your opinion on this nonsense being an example of a disconnect? 
     

    I addressed that earlier in the thread. Maybe you missed it in your rage?

    Do you keep a little journal of when strangers on the Internet criticise the club? Should I be worried? Times like these I'm grateful for our country's gun laws. Surely I'm nowhere near the top of your list?

×
×
  • Create New...