Refreshing British Democracy

[Barbe bleu 833]

On 21/12/2022 at 13:04, horsefly said:

 Perhaps if you do locate Bill you should ask him to lend you a new joke, I distinctly remember him  saying he had been a stand-up comedian once upon a time. I'm sure he would be happy to oblige.

He said that long before you joined! 

On which note, merry Christmas. All of you! 🎄🇨🇽🤶🎅 

 

Edited December 24, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,318]

8 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

He said that long before you joined! 

On which note, merry Christmas. All of you! 🎄🇨🇽🤶🎅 

 

Hope those brain cells survive the Xmas festivities (I was visiting this site for many years before I decided to join in and bring enlightenment to the impoverished, consider it my Xmas gift.). Merry Xmas!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

On 21/12/2022 at 13:31, TheGunnShow said:

There's part of me thinking that as much as I'm not personally keen on the idea of compulsory voting like there is in Belgium or Australia, it might rejuvenate the Monster Raving Loony Party if they acted as a "no" party like what happened in Belgium.

Obviously, this was an extreme case and a manifesto that sucked in more ways than one, but I'm also sure it's a manifesto promise many would, er.... get behind after, er... considering the figures.

EDIT: Google Tania Derveaux and the 2007 Belgium elections. You'll get the idea.

Hope female voters didn't feel too left out!

Really not a fan of compulsory voting personally; the underlying principle of democracy is seeking the consent of the governed. If the process is coerced instead of voluntary then that goes against the grain somewhat, and you still have the underlying problem that turning up does not mean you will have considered your vote seriously.

In contrast, changing to electoral systems that are inherently more representative has consistently resulted in better turnout of the electorate in countries like New Zealand, who have actually done this.

Polls on the subject consistently show strong public support for adopting this reform. https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/public-on-reform

I stumbled across this piece by HG Wells on the subject of proportional representation from 1918. In many respects if it was published today then you'd struggle to realise it was talking about 100 years ago instead of today. Plus ca change.

https://hackernoon.com/the-recent-struggle-for-proportional-representation-in-great-britain

Merry Christmas.

 

 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Hope female voters didn't feel too left out!

Really not a fan of compulsory voting personally; the underlying principle of democracy is seeking the consent of the governed. If the process is coerced instead of voluntary then that goes against the grain somewhat, and you still have the underlying problem that turning up does not mean you will have considered your vote seriously.

In contrast, changing to electoral systems that are inherently more representative has consistently resulted in better turnout of the electorate in countries like New Zealand, who have actually done this.

Polls on the subject consistently show strong public support for adopting this reform. https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/public-on-reform

I stumbled across this piece by HG Wells on the subject of proportional representation from 1918. In many respects if it was published today then you'd struggle to realise it was talking about 100 years ago instead of today. Plus ca change.

https://hackernoon.com/the-recent-struggle-for-proportional-representation-in-great-britain

Merry Christmas.

 

 

Yeah, I'm not a fan of compulsory voting either BUT the formation of a joke party or two like the Monster Raving Loonies (or NEE in Belgium, and the Party of the Strong in Kosovo) for such disillusioned voters to put their vote in seems a better way than spoiling a ballot paper.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

EDIT: Oh, that's good. Found a link about the foundation of the party in Kosovo I mentioned. The 119 percent quip is memorable to put it mildly!

'Why are you in politics?' 'To get rich!': Kosovo's local poll is being enlivened by the satirical Strong Party | The Independent | The Independent

Edited December 25, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yeah, I'm not a fan of compulsory voting either BUT the formation of a joke party or two like the Monster Raving Loonies (or NEE in Belgium, and the Party of the Strong in Kosovo) for such disillusioned voters to put their vote in seems a better way than spoiling a ballot paper.

Merry Christmas, everyone.

EDIT: Oh, that's good. Found a link about the foundation of the party in Kosovo I mentioned. The 119 percent quip is memorable to put it mildly!

'Why are you in politics?' 'To get rich!': Kosovo's local poll is being enlivened by the satirical Strong Party | The Independent | The Independent

Joke party or not, it's surprising just how many policy successes the Monster Raving Loony Party can take credit for. In some respects, that is a way in which smaller parties do have an influence, even under our anachronistic system championed by Labour and the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the fact it comes down to main parties simply hijacking ideas rather than the parties getting popular support doesn't really add anything in terms of confidence in the system.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717

Edit: Frohe Weinachten!

Edited December 25, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

6 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Joke party or not, it's surprising just how many policy successes the Monster Raving Loony Party can take credit for. In some respects, that is a way in which smaller parties do have an influence, even under our anachronistic system championed by Labour and the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the fact it comes down to main parties simply hijacking ideas rather than the parties getting popular support doesn't really add anything in terms of confidence in the system.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717

Edit: Frohe Weinachten!

True enough 

And another joke party, UKIP, helped to deliver Brexit 😀

Ah well, Merry Christmas 🙂

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

10 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Joke party or not, it's surprising just how many policy successes the Monster Raving Loony Party can take credit for. In some respects, that is a way in which smaller parties do have an influence, even under our anachronistic system championed by Labour and the Conservatives. Unfortunately, the fact it comes down to main parties simply hijacking ideas rather than the parties getting popular support doesn't really add anything in terms of confidence in the system.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/usvsth3m/7-monster-raving-loony-party-5644717

Edit: Frohe Weinachten!

WeiHnachten. 😉 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/democracy-two-party-system-politics-government-parliament

A long read, but a lot of interesting points, including: How the Commons system is based on adversarial advocacy inspired by the legal system; how the growth of ideology is incompatible with the adversarial system and creates real social divides; how Brexit itself showed the extremity of the dysfunction of our model for the Commons.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

56 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/politics/democracy-two-party-system-politics-government-parliament

A long read, but a lot of interesting points, including: How the Commons system is based on adversarial advocacy inspired by the legal system; how the growth of ideology is incompatible with the adversarial system and creates real social divides; how Brexit itself showed the extremity of the dysfunction of our model for the Commons.

 

Of course the very basis of elections is that it is necessary because not one party can provide policies that everyone of us agrees with or shares. Many have sought the centre ground in the hope of attracting the majority. But so many of us have beliefs which won't be swayed by compromise. So it becomes adversarial, sometimes to the extreme.

 

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

there is no more adversarial democracy. neocon Labour is as corrupt as the Tories. I weep for all those that fought and died fighting antisemitism and fascism in the second great unpleasantness. But looking at the western turn to right wing politics/policies and its current support for antisemitic murderers such as Bandera and his offspring, there is only one conclusion to make. Fascism has won and survived the politics many still hold dear.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

11 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

there is no more adversarial democracy. neocon Labour is as corrupt as the Tories. I weep for all those that fought and died fighting antisemitism and fascism in the second great unpleasantness. But looking at the western turn to right wing politics/policies and its current support for antisemitic murderers such as Bandera and his offspring, there is only one conclusion to make. Fascism has won and survived the politics many still hold dear.

 

Bandera probably died before you were born. And just like the Croats and Finns, many Ukrainians were opposed to the Soviet Communist State. And Jews of course. The pogroms had taken place long before Communism became the only politic of the area.

Don't forget, members of our Royal Family were evidently negotiating with the Fascists. And there was a lot of support for Moseley at the time.

Also don't forget, the Zionists were demanding a partitioned homeland well before the fascists ever came to power. And there was support from the Labour Party during WWI. And the stigma from that support has always troubled those in the Labour Party who do not see history as just that or compromise as an answer.

Corbyn never did anything other than say Antisemitism was wrong. He didn't apologise because he was beholding to Momentum and that organisation was full of middle class who believed their shame at their ancestors should manifest as just opposing Israel and supporting Hamas.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

On 16/01/2023 at 13:36, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

there is no more adversarial democracy. neocon Labour is as corrupt as the Tories. I weep for all those that fought and died fighting antisemitism and fascism in the second great unpleasantness. But looking at the western turn to right wing politics/policies and its current support for antisemitic murderers such as Bandera and his offspring, there is only one conclusion to make. Fascism has won and survived the politics many still hold dear.

 

You support Putin, who has led Russia to something that shares ever so many similarities with actual fascism, and spout this nonsense about fascism; you truly are a clown.

Edited January 19, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

On 16/01/2023 at 12:36, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

there is no more adversarial democracy. neocon Labour is as corrupt as the Tories. I weep for all those that fought and died fighting antisemitism and fascism in the second great unpleasantness. But looking at the western turn to right wing politics/policies and its current support for antisemitic murderers such as Bandera and his offspring, there is only one conclusion to make. Fascism has won and survived the politics many still hold dear.

 

Do you have a picture of yourself weeping "for all those who fought and died fighting antisemitism and fascism in the second great unpleasantness"? Preferably one with both you and your beloved Murray hugging in mutual grief. I can post many pictures of the victims of the fascist anti-Semite Putin weeping at the murder, torture, and destruction he has unleashed upon innocent people.

Perhaps you also have pictures of the western leaders standing together at the graveside of Bandera, all pledging their support for fascism and their commitment to wiping Jews from the face of the earth.

You are an utter joke!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/vladimir-putin-ukraine-attack-antisemitism-denazify

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 19/01/2023 at 00:28, littleyellowbirdie said:

You support Putin, who has led Russia to something that shares ever so many similarities with actual fascism, and spout this nonsense about fascism; you truly are a clown.

you of little brain, I do not support Putin, but its not up to me to 'system change' a la shock and awe Baghdad. My guess is you have been stung by something like a horse fly, who eats and drinks the crap that comes out of 'der Stuermers' MI collective.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

20 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

you of little brain, I do not support Putin, but its not up to me to 'system change' a la shock and awe Baghdad. My guess is you have been stung by something like a horse fly, who eats and drinks the crap that comes out of 'der Stuermers' MI collective.

From someone who displays utter contempt and derision for the liberties we enjoy in our own societies, where individuals enjoy vastly superior rights and living standards, your refusal to condemn Putin's actions domestically and abroad, coupled with determination to justify Putin's actions, looks indistinguishable from approval.

Edited January 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

21 hours ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

you of little brain, I do not support Putin, but its not up to me to 'system change' a la shock and awe Baghdad. My guess is you have been stung by something like a horse fly, who eats and drinks the crap that comes out of 'der Stuermers' MI collective.

Hahaha! Is that a genuine attempt at irony? That first clause followed by a stream of moronic drivel is just so funny. Did Craig help you with that?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 19/01/2023 at 07:54, horsefly said:

Do you have a picture of yourself weeping "for all those who fought and died fighting antisemitism and fascism in the second great unpleasantness"? Preferably one with both you and your beloved Murray hugging in mutual grief. I can post many pictures of the victims of the fascist anti-Semite Putin weeping at the murder, torture, and destruction he has unleashed upon innocent people.

Perhaps you also have pictures of the western leaders standing together at the graveside of Bandera, all pledging their support for fascism and their commitment to wiping Jews from the face of the earth.

You are an utter joke!

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/25/vladimir-putin-ukraine-attack-antisemitism-denazify

and you are a propaganda shill for warmongers. Go and fight for Nazis you coward.

[horsefly 4,318]

11 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

and you are a propaganda shill for warmongers. Go and fight for Nazis you coward.

Sieg Heil Mein Fuhrer!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

On 24/01/2023 at 14:48, horsefly said:

Sieg Heil, Mein Fuhrer!

Somehow, a bit of grammar Nazism felt timely. 🙃

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

On 24/01/2023 at 14:34, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

and you are a propaganda shill for warmongers. Go and fight for Nazis you coward.

Out of curiosity, do you have any positive notions about what sort of democratic reforms would improve public confidence in UK governance?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Out of curiosity, do you have any positive notions about what sort of democratic reforms would improve public confidence in UK governance?

yes I have. for starters a fair proportional election system, such as STV or AMS, full decentralisation of Government and a right to re call failures who don't want to be accountable. An end to the foist Halls of Westminster,  somebody will make a nice hotel, casino of it. No HoC or Hol. Breaking up the Met into four separate forces.

for starters. I'd like to see an end to undermined and corrupted party politics, why should we not be able to find our own local leaders.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

Quote

Well for me, a rapist is much like a murderer. If someone goes out with the intention of violently, maybe fatally, attacking someone and raping them, then the public must be protected and they must be punished first and foremost.

So to be honest, I couldn't give a fcuk what a rapist identifies as. If at the time he had male genitals and used them in his crime then he gets sentenced and interred for what he was at the time.

If it were to happen to any of the females in my greater family, I would be after blood and the discussions about rights, gender etc would go right over my head.

I am going to expand it by saying so much of all this bull is a fashion. There was a time not so long ago that many young women were saying they were Lesbian. They weren't. It was a fashion. I personally know of three young who said they might be Lesbian because they fancied their friend. And now they are happily back gnoshing on some lads pork sword.

See, I'm getting crude now because all this siht is driving me mad. I'm fed up with people sympathising with criminals and not the victims. I'm fed up with a lad that I know knocking down and killing two people while over the limit, lying to the Police and when caught out getting two and a half years only. In fact he killed three because the son of the couple took his own life shortly after.

I'm fed up with them saying Paedophiles have been rehabilitated. I'm fed up that Sacoolas can walk free. I'm fed up that people are sympathising with Begum and want her repatriated. I'm fed up Zahawi can carry on as an MP.

I'm also fed up with people who have contributed fcuk all to this nation from birth telling us they are under privileged. As a Socialist, I can tell you that I don't have a middle class conscience. My family didn't profit from the expansion of the Empire or East India Company. I don't have guilt about the slave trade. Built we didn't build the welfare state and introduce worker rights just for others to take advantage.

Of course we have to have laws and basic rights. I was a Trade Union Secretary who fought for them. But just like the Ten Commandments, they are a guideline to how you should live your life. They must not be taken for granted or used for the wrong reason.

@keelansgrandad, I hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd respond to this on this thread, because the general thrust of it really speaks to my feelings about the need for radical change in how the UK conducts politics in the Commons.

I think you've said in the past that you're a Labour/Green supporter? What's really striking for me in this is the resonance with a lot of the discussion surrounding the fall of the 'red wall' at the last election in that you're clearly very staunchly a socialist in an economic sense and a good fit for Labour on that score, but clearly very very at odds with the party on the social justice causes it tends to bundle in there with it.

To me, it seems the economics/workers rights stuff is more important to you than the social justice issues, even though the direction on those other issues obviously frustrate you, whereas it's clear in some places other people have been sufficiently turned off by the social justice stuff that they've either voted Conservative or not voted at all in spite of very likely being in favour of Labour in an economic sense.

My question is whether you personally feel you're better off with a system of representative democracy where you're forced to make your own compromise over which beliefs you abandon in your vote, or whether you'd be better represented voting for a party more tailored to your personal outlook who can then negotiate with other parties on common ground to move forward legislation?

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

@keelansgrandad, I hope you don't mind, but I thought I'd respond to this on this thread, because the general thrust of it really speaks to my feelings about the need for radical change in how the UK conducts politics in the Commons.

I think you've said in the past that you're a Labour/Green supporter? What's really striking for me in this is the resonance with a lot of the discussion surrounding the fall of the 'red wall' at the last election in that you're clearly very staunchly a socialist in an economic sense and a good fit for Labour on that score, but clearly very very at odds with the party on the social justice causes it tends to bundle in there with it.

To me, it seems the economics/workers rights stuff is more important to you than the social justice issues, even though the direction on those other issues obviously frustrate you, whereas it's clear in some places other people have been sufficiently turned off by the social justice stuff that they've either voted Conservative or not voted at all in spite of very likely being in favour of Labour in an economic sense.

My question is whether you personally feel you're better off with a system of representative democracy where you're forced to make your own compromise over which beliefs you abandon in your vote, or whether you'd be better represented voting for a party more tailored to your personal outlook who can then negotiate with other parties on common ground to move forward legislation?

 

Good question. And it will take a long reply.

My Father was a Communist. What made him follow that path was an incident during the evacuation of Dunkirk. Up to then he had been a Labour follower. He was sat in a small boat off the beach waiting to be transferred to a Navy ship. The boat was over full. An Officer appeared in the water alongside the small boat. He demanded somebody get off so he could get in. One soldier was about to to when a squaddie said "Stay there, nobody is getting off wait your turn". The Officer protested or something and tried to pull rank and with that the squaddie smashed him in the face with his rifle butt. The officer drifted off with the tide, presumably dead.

My father said at that moment it was like an epiphany. He could understand, he believed, what it really imaged. He said that so much had taken place within that 10-15 seconds. First, that they were sat in some chap's pleasure boat off the shore of Dunkirk showed they were indeed, Lions led by Lambs. Secondly, the prime sense of survival superceded the respect and privilege that the Officer assumed was due to him as the squaddie decided he would kill him, no murder him, rather than let someone give up his place for him.

So he knew, the old order had to be replaced. War was redundant. People mattered. The sacrifices being made could not go unrewarded. Engineers, bakers, firemen, bank managers, landowners, film stars had all fought alongside each other. We had to return to a land fit for not just heroes but men who had just given up so much for something most didn't understand or have a say in.

So when the war was over, he ended up in Norwich, met Mum etc and went back to work as an engineer. Determined that if men and women could share the war then surely there could be some sort of equality following it. And he found nothing had changed. But luckily so many shared the same view and a Labour Government came to power. And began the equality. And the NHS and Welfare state were the greatest achievements for mankind in our nation. The movement had achieved some success.

The Welfare State was set up to help people, who through little or no fault of their own, could receive a version of the comradeship of war in peace time. No, it wasn't a free hand out. It had to be paid for, but at source, we, as a great nation, changing hopefully, could help you out. No more the Officer demanding you get out of the boat. But also, no killing him either.

So we elected our Labour and Socialist representatives and our trade Unions achieved great success. The world really was changing.

And then some of the the very people who would have been denied before would ruin so much by demanding more than their fair share. It was their right to have something for nothing. It wasn't their fault. It was the system's fault.

Goodness, that wasn't what the pioneers set out to achieve. Sinn Fein didn't set out to achieve a partitioned country. Socialists believed in fairness, equality of opportunity and a belief that the state would reward you by taking away so many of your worries should you fall on hard times. You do not start life on benefits. You might never have to use them. Its not what they are there for.

And so much of that attitude has percolated into so much of our fabric. Alongside a welfare state should be the notion that there is a conformity attached to it. We all pay our fair share into it. And we stay within the law as much as we can. We should want to. But of course there are those, who with the benefit of the State standing by to help you, want to go their own way such as crime, violence and just a basic disdain for the society we thought we had created.

So I say to all those people, you had a gift. Something that took so long to achieve. And you have no regard for it. If you cheat and lie or step outside of the law, don't cry afterwards that you have been persecuted or not had a fair hearing. We helped set up the system and we will fight your corner and share our bread if you need help. It is not a right if you don't want to pay your membership.

It is why, so many Socialist countries do sometimes appear to have to be brutal in their repercussions. The system is there to make your life better. Don't ruin it the rest because of your attitude.

And that is why I believe I can call myself a Socialist. I am willing to help and hopefull use all resources to make things better. But don't abuse that privilege. You are then no better than that Officer.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

That's really interesting background and I think you're far from alone in the feelings of some negative consequences to the introduction of greater welfare in the UK while still believing that welfare is important,  but I was more driving at how you think your views can be best represented in our society electorally, given that you're clearly well out of step with Labour on a lot of social issues in spite of being totally on board with them economically? Is it preferable to you to maintain the status quo of you having to abandon a lot of social beliefs in voting for the modern Labour package, or would you be happier voting for a smaller party closer to your personal beliefs both socially and economically under a proportional system that can take those beliefs to the table in arguing a way forward in a more pluralistic parliament?

Edited February 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That's really interesting background and I think you're far from alone in the feelings of some negative consequences to the introduction of greater welfare in the UK while still believing that welfare is important,  but I was more driving at how you think your views can be best represented in our society electorally, given that you're clearly well out of step with Labour on a lot of social issues in spite of being totally on board with them economically? Is it preferable to you to maintain the status quo of you having to abandon a lot of social beliefs in voting for the modern Labour package, or would you be happier voting for a smaller party closer to your personal beliefs both socially and economically under a proportional system that can take those beliefs to the table in arguing a way forward in a more pluralistic parliament?

Sorry. I missed your point. I will stick to my beliefs. Our voting system is not fit for purpose as we know. And my intention is to vote Green at the next GE, unless Labour changes leader and manifesto beforehand. 

I was a member of the Labour Party but resigned as we do not have enough in common anymore. Many people I know left the Party because of Corbyn. Now they are rejoining. So in the words of Tony Soprano, what can you do.

Voting Green will be seen by many as a wasted vote. Why? I can't understand that argument. Under a different system than FPTP it would be as important as any other. And so many people believe they are Green in other matters so why not finance, foreign relations and home affairs.

I still can't make my mind up about which alternative is the better. Other nations have different systems but also are different cultures. But its clear that worldwide democracies are right leaning in the rural areas and left leaning in the metropolitan ones.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

I just had a look at the last election for Camborne and Redruth and it does look like Labour are a very strong second place to the Conservative incumbent. Proper dilemma you have there.

One thing I took part in at the last election was vote swapping, which allows you to pair up with someone who may not want to vote green as a first choice, but would vote green there for you in an exchange for a Labour vote from you.

It's largely symbolic and very limited in practical terms, but at the same time it does encourage a helpful idea. I agreed to a lib dem swap last election because I really couldn't stomach a Labour vote on my own bat at the last election.

https://www.swapmyvote.uk/

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

25 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I just had a look at the last election for Camborne and Redruth and it does look like Labour are a very strong second place to the Conservative incumbent. Proper dilemma you have there.

One thing I took part in at the last election was vote swapping, which allows you to pair up with someone who may not want to vote green as a first choice, but would vote green there for you in an exchange for a Labour vote from you.

It's largely symbolic and very limited in practical terms, but at the same time it does encourage a helpful idea. I agreed to a lib dem swap last election because I really couldn't stomach a Labour vote on my own bat at the last election.

https://www.swapmyvote.uk/

Bolton West will pretty much be a straight-up duel between the Tories and Labour. Pretty easy where my vote's going.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

44 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I just had a look at the last election for Camborne and Redruth and it does look like Labour are a very strong second place to the Conservative incumbent. Proper dilemma you have there.

One thing I took part in at the last election was vote swapping, which allows you to pair up with someone who may not want to vote green as a first choice, but would vote green there for you in an exchange for a Labour vote from you.

It's largely symbolic and very limited in practical terms, but at the same time it does encourage a helpful idea. I agreed to a lib dem swap last election because I really couldn't stomach a Labour vote on my own bat at the last election.

https://www.swapmyvote.uk/

In the 42 years I have lived here, all three major parties have had success.Each Party has been very silly in who they select for our constituency at times. We have endured the disinterested Seb Coe to the Varsity Lecturer Pied Piper Corbynite. At the moment we have Johnson devotee George Eustice. He is stepping down.

I do see the seat going to Labour providing they select the right candidate. They must be local is a priority.

I intend to vote Green. I do not know who they will select as I am waiting to see their new manifesto to see whether there is anything I don't like or agree with. The usual candidate is very local and in local elections, while not gaining a seat has beaten the Labour candidate into third on occasions. The Tories don't even put a candidate up.

I understand fully tactical voting and it must be considered to get the current shower out. But unless the Labour candidate does really impress, I will definitely vote Green.

[sonyc 5,541]

I watched Wolf today on Politics Live. For once, a very interesting programme which was not beset by idiots infighting but engaging. 

And I agree with a lot of what this piece says:

Is our democracy in peril? “Who isn’t afraid of Martin Wolf?” asks Emma Duncan in The Times. The FT columnist is the most important economics commentator in Britain, arguably the world. And in a new book, he has a chilling warning for the global elite: unless they change their ways, “the end is nigh”. Wolf’s theory is that the “benign marriage” between capitalism and liberal democracy is falling apart. Since the Second World War, the two systems have complemented each other: globalisation made everyone richer, which “fertilised the ground” for liberal democracy to spread beyond the West. The Soviet Union, which offered the only serious alternatives to capitalism and democracy, collapsed. The problem, Wolf argues, is that democracy and capitalism have always been in tension. Democracy is local; capitalism global. In a democracy people are of equal value; under capitalism their value is measured by their wealth. So when corporations avoid paying tax, ship jobs abroad to save money and demand high levels of immigration to provide cheap labour, voters resent it and vote for policies that “undermine capitalism”. The beneficiaries are populists like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who end up serving them “even worse” than the old establishment. So what to do? Wolf has no groundbreaking solutions: his suggested reforms – essentially more European-style social democracy and higher taxes on the rich – amount to: “Be Danish.” Nevertheless, his is an important message. When people accuse him of pessimism, he points out that he wouldn’t exist but for two pessimists (his father and his mother’s father), both of whom fled Nazi-occupied Europe. “Almost to the last individual” their extended families were murdered, he writes. “My family history makes me aware of the fragility of civilisation.”

Edited February 9, 2023 by sonyc
Apologies for the way this piece has formatted!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

43 minutes ago, sonyc said:

I watched Wolf today on Politics Live. For once, a very interesting programme which was not beset by idiots infighting but engaging. 

And I agree with a lot of what this piece says:

Is our democracy in peril? “Who isn’t afraid of Martin Wolf?” asks Emma Duncan in The Times. The FT columnist is the most important economics commentator in Britain, arguably the world. And in a new book, he has a chilling warning for the global elite: unless they change their ways, “the end is nigh”. Wolf’s theory is that the “benign marriage” between capitalism and liberal democracy is falling apart. Since the Second World War, the two systems have complemented each other: globalisation made everyone richer, which “fertilised the ground” for liberal democracy to spread beyond the West. The Soviet Union, which offered the only serious alternatives to capitalism and democracy, collapsed. The problem, Wolf argues, is that democracy and capitalism have always been in tension. Democracy is local; capitalism global. In a democracy people are of equal value; under capitalism their value is measured by their wealth. So when corporations avoid paying tax, ship jobs abroad to save money and demand high levels of immigration to provide cheap labour, voters resent it and vote for policies that “undermine capitalism”. The beneficiaries are populists like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson, who end up serving them “even worse” than the old establishment. So what to do? Wolf has no groundbreaking solutions: his suggested reforms – essentially more European-style social democracy and higher taxes on the rich – amount to: “Be Danish.” Nevertheless, his is an important message. When people accuse him of pessimism, he points out that he wouldn’t exist but for two pessimists (his father and his mother’s father), both of whom fled Nazi-occupied Europe. “Almost to the last individual” their extended families were murdered, he writes. “My family history makes me aware of the fragility of civilisation.”

This is absolutely true. Perversely, the Soviet Union was very much a driving force for the growth of globalisation by inspiring the US to be open with other countries to woo them to its side of the divide. Now it is gone, the importance of preserving the appeal of liberal democracy has lessened.

I think the threats to our modern democracies are mischaracterised as either right wing or left wing; I would say the biggest threat is distrust of our own systems and institutions as a whole be make fair decisions and represent people in a way that properly reflects public opinion. Globalisation and international treaties have tied the hands of government to represent the will of its people on one hand, and also the perception that government decisions are more influenced by corporate lobbies than the people they're supposed to represent.

A lot of support for Donald Trump was very much an unholy alliance of hippies and survival nuts; it was and is very much a coalition of the disaffected, reinforcing the point of distrust of the establishment being the biggest threat to us.

Globalisation has improved wealth equality globally  by allowing poorer parts of the world to sell into wealthier parts. It has largely gone off the rails since 2008, when disposable income stopped rising year on year and levelled off; now it's starting to go backwards because of pushback in wealthier nations where people are seeing their living standards drop.

It's very interesting that a lot of the arguments in support for EU membership made were about EU rules that stop our own governments making decisions over many topics. And yet the EU itself has many issues regarding transparency and corruption if everyone's honest about it. Moreover, those rules don't really stop anything if you have a government willing to ignore the rules as highlighted by the EU's ongoing battle with Hungary on civil liberties.

As a small, resource poor island, we need globalisation one way or the other and we need to engage with it and try to influence it as much as we can, whether that's through the EU, CPTPP, or any other large bloc that has some element where we can negotiate for shared interests that serve our interests. All of it is useless though if our own society collapses from distrust in our own institutions, which is why actual electoral reform is far and away the most important topic for the UK in terms of its survival as a civilised nation.

The lack of public interest in actually promoting movements to properly reform UK democracy in favour of a neverending lament of our withdrawal from the EU is profoundly wrongheaded in my view.