With good reason given it's 13:23.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Good point, well made. (no condescending implied)
You mustn’t be very self-aware, either. Read back on your own interaction with Brwned and tell me who is posting sarcy, condescending remarks — to a poster whom wants to have a genuine debate with them.
Pot, meet kettle.
Self-aware, another key word posted on here often.
I clearly stated I wasn't interested in a debate but still, the mob comes out.
Let's show a little respect for eachother and leave it there. I see no gain for anyone in this continuing
Why are you still posting then?
What a crybaby.
Because I'm a crybaby, obviously
Ok, well thanks for engaging in the discussion anyway o lachrymose Widow.
I get your point, sometimes you can't be arsed getting into a lengthy debate with a stranger. Especially in a political discussion where you see no middle ground, what's the point? I do genuinely think we have a problem in this country with difficult political discussions, so I pushed a bit on that, but I wouldn't have begruded you just ignoring it. You'd hardly be the first!
I was just saying I didn't go into it in bad faith, I wasn't trying to jump on your opinions, I thought there was an opportunity for a discussion from two opposing views on a complicated issue. If you'd have just said nah man I can't be arsed with that, fair enough. But if you're going to spin it into something else - first being dismissive of my view, then pointing out what I did as "the problem" with this place - then some clarification seemed worthwhile.
Lachrymose? That's a new one on me!
Maybe I was just having a really bad morning. Maybe this heat and being in a stuffy courtroom for an extended period made me a little cranky.
I apologise unreservedly.
Aye the heat's bad enough in my own home, plus those god damn flies...so I wouldn't do too well in a courtroom right now myself! No bother.
cnuts going after our Marcus again
Inevitable really but they’re barking up the wrong tree going after him. The lad is a saint if you ask the majority of the nation and trying to run a smear piece on him will only reflect badly on the Spectator. It’s not like Marcus’ core following will ever read it anyway.
The Spectator have published an out and proud antisemite for years and also have a woman beater, who said he couldn't work in schools in case he tried to feck the kids, on their payroll.
Their readers will lap it up, their contributors and editor will still be booked onto the BBC three to four times a week and nobody will give a toss.
Their readers will lap it up, their contributors and editor will still be booked onto the BBC three to four times a week and nobody will give a toss.
I don't understand the 'we', in this sentence, clearly you are someone who does not hold to low standards for politicians and so would not presumably include yourself in this grouping?
Neither do I, but just how do you get more transparency, ethical standards, political alignments into UK party politics?
Incidentally I don't think Norway is a good example its population is very similar to Scotland's, not the UK. Population size is important, especially if 'every vote needs to count'; taken together Norway , Sweden and Denmark barely cover 20-25 M, population and could not collectively be compared with the UK, even though they identify as separate countries, but as Nordic peoples
That clearly wasn't the feeling on Brexit, was it?
I am not happy with how things work and I don't oppose change, in some cases just for the hell of it..."change is as good as a rest" ... as the saying goes. The problem is how do we induce change, clearly (at least in my view) normal party politics doesn't embrace the kind of changes , I and probably many others would like to see, in fact it stifles it. As it stands to influence either of the major parties you need massive pressure groups, single issues in many cases, like the Brexit Party, which never won one seat in the UK parliament, yet brought about major change by ultimately threatening the powers that be in both the major parties, on the back of the referendum result.
Clearly after such a referendum no governing party is going to risk anything similar, at least not for some time, especially not on the basis of 'how we do things'.
I would very much like to hear your view, on just how we could change things?
Yes, I suppose I am a political masochist... the trouble is at my age I don't know how to stop!
The "we" in this case is just UK citizens, which I'm one of. The way I see it, I share equal responsibility with any other voter for the challenges that we face. Advocating for the idea that we should expect accountability and transparency as standard is part of exercising that responsibility, but it effects little change on its own. I certainly wouldn't separate myself from other citizens on that basis: talk is cheap. Right now I exercise that responsibility very poorly because it depends on network effects, if most people don't want accountability, it doesn't matter if you do. So I'm part of that failing, regardless of my view.
I understand why you don't want to compare it to Norway, but the general principle remains regardless of which comparison you make. For example, Germany functions differently to the UK in lots of key ways.
Whether that's better or worse depends on your political perspectives etc. but the obvious truth is the way the UK functions now is not the only way it can function, and there's no basis for the claim that any new changes will just introduce trade-offs that end up 1 step forward, 1 step back. That's an ideological default but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It depends on what choices are made and how they're implemented. If you're inclined to assume the wrong choices will be made, unintended consequences will follow, things will be poorly implemented, and that's just reality, then that's fair enough as an ideological view but it's logically flawed and results in a pointless discussion.
There's loads of ways we could change things. To me, that's an endless discussion which bores others and often goes down tunnels. Maybe another time I'll be up for going down those endless tunnels
More pertinently, I'm not advocating for myself as the person to determine those changes, I'm advocating for a democratic society to expect much more ownership of those decisions, and to feel like if some fundamental principles are violated that we are not just entitled but required to demand accountability and transparency. If we made that one shift I think a lot of downstream problems would be resolved in a better way than you or I can speculate on our own, I firmly believe in the power of the wisdom of crowds. I agree it would come with trade-offs but I can't agree at all that those trade-offs are worse than the current situation where accountability is considered this kind of amusing, mythical idea. It has a corrosive effect on political engagement which I would see as a central part of our current issues.
The "we" in this case is just UK citizens, which I'm one of. The way I see it, I share equal responsibility with any other voter for the challenges that we face. Advocating for the idea that we should expect accountability and transparency as standard is part of exercising that responsibility, but it effects little change on its own. I certainly wouldn't separate myself from other citizens on that basis: talk is cheap. Right now I exercise that responsibility very poorly because it depends on network effects, if most people don't want accountability, it doesn't matter if you do. So I'm part of that failing, regardless of my view.
I understand why you don't want to compare it to Norway, but the general principle remains regardless of which comparison you make. For example, Germany functions differently to the UK in lots of key ways.
Whether that's better or worse depends on your political perspectives etc. but the obvious truth is the way the UK functions now is not the only way it can function, and there's no basis for the claim that any new changes will just introduce trade-offs that end up 1 step forward, 1 step back. That's an ideological default but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It depends on what choices are made and how they're implemented. If you're inclined to assume the wrong choices will be made, unintended consequences will follow, things will be poorly implemented, and that's just reality, then that's fair enough as an ideological view but it's logically flawed and results in a pointless discussion.
There's loads of ways we could change things. To me, that's an endless discussion which bores others and often goes down tunnels. Maybe another time I'll be up for going down those endless tunnels
More pertinently, I'm not advocating for myself as the person to determine those changes, I'm advocating for a democratic society to expect much more ownership of those decisions, and to feel like if some fundamental principles are violated that we are not just entitled but required to demand accountability and transparency. If we made that one shift I think a lot of downstream problems would be resolved in a better way than you or I can speculate on our own, I firmly believe in the power of the wisdom of crowds. I agree it would come with trade-offs but I can't agree at all that those trade-offs are worse than the current situation where accountability is considered this kind of amusing, mythical idea. It has a corrosive effect on political engagement which I would see as a central part of our current issues.
Thank you for your response, I don't think there is a lot of difference between us on advocating what a good idea accountability and transparency and honesty is for our politics, but as you say on its own its effects little change. Perhaps the only real difference between us is that it has been my experience that the 'trade-off' is at the heart of the matter, i.e. "the great British compromise"... it is practiced at the very heart of our party political systems and becomes the norm elsewhere. The 'don't do as I do, do as I say' has always been there, but it is rampant now in our politics, as Boris is a 'shining' (well that's perhaps not the right word) example of a politician who appears to be 'Mr Teflon', nothing sticks to him!
I would genuinely like to think there are 'loads of ways' (as you put it), to change things, but I have yet to have heard of, let alone see tested, any way which achieves this, in terms of enhancing accountability, transparency and honesty in our politics, and as you say you believe in the power of the wisdom of crowds, that actually works. Perhaps as another poster on here @Pexbo, describe me, as a masochist and certainly in political terms I accept the charge. I don't agree in the power of wisdom of crowds, I have always found that in any crowd espousing political change there are; the true believers, (the shock troops); also the well 'lets give it a chance (rs)'; and the 'whats in it for me/only here for the beer contingent' and of course the 'hangers on' who just want to fit in' and/or be part of a crowd'. These groups, sometimes indiscriminately, strike bargains or if you prefer trade-offs between themselves and the compromise is reached (if not always acknowledged) even before the 'offer is made' (so to speak) to the public.
Without wishing to restart our discussion on nuance, the example above is situation is where I believe nuance can act just as much against real understanding, it is a cover for individuals or the collective conscience to be eased, just as in other ways it can enhance understanding. Politicians wishing to avoid accountability (of course only when things go wrong) and/or who are not looking in particular for transparency and of course those knowing they are being dishonest, love to find nuance in the way their comments and indeed in some of their actions are taken.
I suppose in the end we are all formed by the experiences we have in life, I am now in my 70's and tbh despair of ever seeing the kind of political system that does value accountability, transparency and honesty in the way it operates.
I hope and trust you are young enough to see some improvement in your lifetime, and looking at things like Climate Change issues it is going to be very important indeed that these are the hallmarks of our future politics.
The only way to guarantee you don't improve anything is to maintain the status quo. For example, if you think Boris is appalling, you should vote for someone else on principle, regardless of whether you think you particularly like the alternative. It's the only feedback mechanism we have.
In my view we should just do 6 year terms and then bar the ruling party from being in charge next time round - their MPs could still run as independents but I'd bar them from cabinet positions. It would mean they'd all actually have to work with each other instead of bickering like embarrassing public school children.
Well, that or proportional representation - that also encourages compromise to some extent.
I'm watching the interview now. The way he's smirking and trying to hold back his laughter just demonstrates how much of a shit he kind of gives about this whole thing.
Have the spectator published that piece on Rashford yet?
Nope, they’ve shat their pants.
Happy days.
One of the five being the one who said Rashford should stay out of politics and focus on football.
Bet it will be served during recess.
A joke.
Rees Mogg makes a racial slur - no punishment.
Labour MP tells the truth about Johnson - kicked out.
Labour MP tells the truth about Johnson - kicked out.
Thats really twisted the minds of some the right wing lot who are seething at johnson for lying to them about vaccine passports...
I was shocked at anyone not having a nanny, I didn't even know such an existence was possible.
Wish more MPs would do this. He's lying on just about every other subject, everyone knows it so call it out.
Really shows how it's not only our first past the post system is unrepresentative and favours the establishment, but also our whole parliamentary system favours elitism too. It is antiquated and effectively rigged.
You can get Farage to say pretty much anything for £75 on cameo: