Politics

[Rayvin 5223]

 

It's what we have. We are ruled by an Establishment. Politics is window dressing. At least in China they are honest about it.

 

I agree to be honest, but at least if we all gave up the charade we could put some actual pressure on those in charge to make meaningful changes. The Chinese government is shit scared of the Chinese people. One significant uprising/mass protest would be all it would take to have them overthrown, and as a result of that they have to continuously be demonstrating that they're offering a better future for China. Of course, they control media narratives through state controlled press, and paint highly pro-China depictions of international events, along with extremely pro-CCP narratives for domestic affairs, which is the sort of thing that just does not happen in the UK...except that it does.

 

I actually think I've seen the Daily Mail print more utter bollocks in an attempt to control narratives than any Chinese newspaper I've ever read (which admittedly is less than 50, but that's more than the number of Daily Mail's I've read).

 

Our politicians do not fear us, they control and manipulate us while pretending to serve. The Chinese government controls and manipulates while actually delivering progress. If I had to choose one...

[Gemmill 44882]

[Renton 21626]

Fucking hell man! This country has a lot of problems but there's few I'd rather live in. Maybe I've been brainwashed by the western media but to say you'd prefer the Chinese regime.

[Makom 0]

Does a better job of it than FPTP though doesn't it, which was the question that you set.

 

I'm saying it doesn't. It can actually do a worse job in some respects, as this election proved.

[CleeToonFan 1]

How wouldn't it give a better representation of the will of the majority? If a coalition government represents 49.5% of the population then it's a darn sight better than the 36.5% the Conservatives have now. 36.5% of the (voting) population equalling a majority is a massive issue.

One issue is the idea that the word coalition is automatically an evil word. 'Well I'd rather keep FPTP because it equals a strong government'. Why? Coalition governments can work, as was proved (rightly or wrongly) after 2010. It brings extra checks and balances, allows a higher percentage of voters to have an actual voice and (if an extreme case of PR has been used) means every vote actually contributes directly to the outcome of the election. What's not to like?

[Rayvin 5223]

Fucking hell man! This country has a lot of problems but there's few I'd rather live in. Maybe I've been brainwashed by the western media but to say you'd prefer the Chinese regime.

 

I lived in China for a while Maybe they did a hugely impressive brainwashing number on me but honest to God, if I could, I'd be living in Shanghai or Hong Kong right now.

 

I'm not blind to their many, many faults - human rights abuses, total disregard for the value of human life or animal life, almost fever pitch level nationalism, etc...but they're making huge inroads in green energy developments, they're positive about the future, they work hard as a nation and to be quite honest, once you get past the 'China is the new America' rhetoric, they're generally very pleasant people (as a comment about living there, rather than a critique of their government).

 

My central issue here is that our government is little better than theirs in terms of liberal values, and is massively less productive.

Edited May 13, 2015 by Rayvin

[Gemmill 44882]

But pooing in the street though? I mean come on, they don't even do that in Sunderland.

[Rayvin 5223]

But pooing in the street though? I mean come on, they don't even do that in Sunderland.

 

 

I read recently that the Chinese government has imposed travel bans on mainland Chinese people visiting Hong Kong for this sort of reason...

 

That said it's sometimes a little unfair to criticise - many of the culprits for that sort of thing in China itself are rural workers who have lived lives entirely apart from what we consider to be civilised society. That's no excuse for the Chinese nouveau riche though, and their misbehaviour at La Louvre...

[trophyshy 7083]

But pooing in the street though? I mean come on, they don't even do that in Sunderland.

 

Sorry like, but they do.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

That's made my week

[Makom 0]

How wouldn't it give a better representation of the will of the majority? If a coalition government represents 49.5% of the population then it's a darn sight better than the 36.5% the Conservatives have now. 36.5% of the (voting) population equalling a majority is a massive issue.

One issue is the idea that the word coalition is automatically an evil word. 'Well I'd rather keep FPTP because it equals a strong government'. Why? Coalition governments can work, as was proved (rightly or wrongly) after 2010. It brings extra checks and balances, allows a higher percentage of voters to have an actual voice and (if an extreme case of PR has been used) means every vote actually contributes directly to the outcome of the election. What's not to like?

 

I'm trying really hard to think of a single thing a Con-UKIP coalition would do that better represented the majority of British voters, that wouldn't be done anyway by a Conservative government with a thin majority. It would actually be worse, under PR, you could see Con-UKIP doing disgraceful things like scrapping foreign aid entirely (a core policy of theirs), just to hold the government together, something Cameron won't have to do at all now because of FPTP, which keeps out extremists by design.

 

At first glance it appears to be fairer, but frankly, it's actually really hard for anyone to successfully argue that coalitions are fair when you get down to it. It's really hard to argue that a coalition that has to pander to extremists like UKIP serves the majority will at all. Just like it was a really hard sell to Liberals that right wing nasty shit like the bedroom tax and ACAS is the price worth paying for supposed economic recovery. It patently wasn't, hence why they have been wiped out for doing so.

 

The case for PR has holes all over it once it's actually critically examined against the majority will using practical examples of the day. Take HS2 - it has broad support amongst Con and Lab, ergo it is the will of the majority to see it built. Yet that too might have been completely scrapped as the price to pay for a PR generated Con-UKIP govt. Similarly, it might have gone as part of the cost cutting demanded by the SNP in a left wing coalition. FPTP however, is going to see it built, especially since FPTP by design gives strong support for things that have cross bench approval.

[Howmanheyman 33221]

 

Making the best out of a bad situation.

[ChezGiven 0]

Prove it then. Let's see your working for how PR supposedly comes up with a better expression of what the majority wanted in this election, or the 2010 one for that matter.

 

As far as I can tell, PR would have either forced the Conservatives into coalition with UKIP, or would have resulted in a left wing coalition of parties forming a government representing the views of 46.8% of voters (Lab-Lib-SNP-Grn), with Con/UKIP's share of 49.5% being in opposition. I can't think of any definition of the concept of majority will that makes either of those outcomes sustainable as either fair or democratic. The same issues exist for the 2010 election.

 

You're mixing the idea of being distasteful with being undemocratic.

 

PR doesnt force any form of coalition whatsoever, a coalition is decided by the preferences of the people who lead and form the parties. If they dont fancy it, they dont get into the coalition.

 

PR determines how many seats you have. If lots of people vote for UKIP, no matter how idiotic they are, having a number of 'votes' in parliament that represents that number is more democratic than any other system. Arguments based on how coalitions play out are irrelevant to the idea of representation of votes with democratic power in parliament.

 

If in your scenario the conservatives dont want to form a coalition with UKIP its because their views are irreconcilable. In your case, another coalition can form a government and no matter how distasteful it might be, the strength of the unified vote wins. This is far too basic for me to be explaining tbh.

[JJ 0]

The best argument I can make in favour of First Past The Post is that it's funny as fuck when an odious arse loses their seat.

 

That's literally the only good thing I can say about it. PR would make sure people's views are represented properly. If it had created a Tory/UKIP coalition? So be it. That's what was voted for.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Disgrace.

 

http://www.exaronews.com/articles/5558/lord-janner-voted-203-times-in-parliament-despite-dementia

[ewerk 30611]

 

[Monkeys Fist 42449]

 

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Oh dear, tears at UKIP

 

Nigel Farage has become a "snarling, thin-skinned, aggressive" man, UKIP's election campaign chief has said in a powerful attack on the party leader.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32732129

[Andrew 4748]

become?

When wasn't he that?

[The Fish 10857]

become?

 

When wasn't he that?

 

Before he was hatched?

[ewerk 30611]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fox-hunting-back-agenda-says-5665629

 

I think I'm more pissed off about this than the planned scrapping of the HRA.

[ewerk 30611]

I think he was right the first time.

 

[Dr Gloom 21924]

John Stewart on the money on the election

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/jon-stewart-gives-an-incisive-analysis-of-the-uk-medias-coverage-of-the-general-election-10245099.html

[Makom 0]

 

You're mixing the idea of being distasteful with being undemocratic.

 

PR doesnt force any form of coalition whatsoever, a coalition is decided by the preferences of the people who lead and form the parties. If they dont fancy it, they dont get into the coalition.

 

PR determines how many seats you have. If lots of people vote for UKIP, no matter how idiotic they are, having a number of 'votes' in parliament that represents that number is more democratic than any other system. Arguments based on how coalitions play out are irrelevant to the idea of representation of votes with democratic power in parliament.

 

If in your scenario the conservatives dont want to form a coalition with UKIP its because their views are irreconcilable. In your case, another coalition can form a government and no matter how distasteful it might be, the strength of the unified vote wins. This is far too basic for me to be explaining tbh.

 

I'm not sure what you think I have misunderstood. I know full well that PR decides how many seats you get, and I know full well that, in theory at least, parties can choose not to go into coalition (although why you think they would when the inevitable result is power being handed to the people furthest from their position, is beyond me).

 

 

It is not just distasteful to be having the government formed by post-ballot negotiation, it is extremely undemocratic if the meaning of democracy is representing the views of the majority (either or the electorate or of the partners). And it's very easy to prove that when you get down to practical realities - something which nobody here who supports PR seems to want to do.

 

In this election, it's pretty obvious that PR would have resulted in a UKIP-Tory coalition, not least because, there would no other possible coalition to secure a majority except Tory-Labour, which would never happen. And it's pretty obvious that UKIP would be the relative winners in the ensuing negotiations.

 

Which leaves advocates of PR having to explain how it's democratic, for, say, the foreign aid budget to disappear simply because 12.6.% of voters said it should, or because the minority partner in the coalition said it should. That wasn't in the Tory manifesto, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't in any of the others either. Why? Because it's an extremist policy. The same goes for any of the other big ticket supposedly populist items UKIP would demand.

 

PR is undemocratic because it rewards extremists, precisely because it forces parties into coalitions, coalitions which can never failry represent the homologated view. The only time it doesn't, is if the partner is a centrist party, and I don't think you can really argue PR would be democratic if you built into it some kind of safety system that ensured it only worked for centrist votes.

[ChezGiven 0]

If only 12.6% of voters say foreign aid should disappear by voting for a party and that party forms a coalition then 1. The other parties in the coalition have to agree to table the change and 2. Over 50% of parliament has to vote for it and 3 UKIP can't force this red line in coalition negotiations if the majority whip calculates it would fail anyway.

 

We don't have to express on here how PR works, Lord Jenkins wrote a report on it for Blair, there are plenty of ways in which it is more democratic and gives everyone a reason to vote. We can keep constituencies and have a more representative parliament.

 

I'm sorry like but that post of yours was total and utter bollocks and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how coalitions work. A Tory UKIP coalition was not even likely if we had had PR and there are a significant amount of centrist Tories (the reason they got so many votes) to ensure the nonsense from UKIP got kicked into the long grass.

 

One last thing; PR was invented to avoid extremists and that is exactly what it has done for 70 years across Europe, so no matter how much you cling on to your poorly thought out arguments, a cursory examination of some actual facts should show you how incorrect you are.