Random News Article Thread

[give_us_a_wave]

the public gets what the public wants, I agree in large with what you are saying however, I believe it will become worse under Labour and Starmer. Not because of left versus right but because "we" the people have elected incompetent politicians.

As always the consensus is somewhere in the middle amongst the pejoratives being hurled. As for history books that has been slowly eradicated in our educational system and our MSM outlets.

It won't be worse. The more obvious corruption will be gone & the tone will change. Starmer will do whatever he's allowed to do by the businesses he's been vigourously sucking up to for most of this year, & the banks.
Starmer is essentially a modern Labour version of John Major. A bland, forgettable nothing with no real ideas. If he did have any ideas they'd soon be vetoed by the press & big business anyway so probably safer for him to not have any. Empty rhetoric wins elections these days, not policy.

The whole democracy problem has one solution & one only, PR. Thats always been the case.
The UK & the US suffer from the same problem, our voting systems are perfectly viable for the 19th century.

Every country in Europe uses some sort of PR & as a result there ends up being much more compromise & discussion in their domestic politics. It's of course not perfect but a hell of a lot better than the embarassing ****wittery of PMQs which functions as a perrenial national embarrassment on a weekly basis.

I've seen "landslide" election victories for Thatcher, Blair & Johnson in my lifetime. None of which saw the winning party get anywhere close to even 50% of the vote. To call that a landslide perfectly demonstates how ****ed up the system really is.

45% of the vote buys you a 75+ seat majority which absolutely guarantees that you can do whatever the **** you want for 5 years & renders opposition essentially worthless. You can't call that democracy.

( the only exception to the above of course, is a god level incompetent like Johnson. Literally nobody else in UK political history could have ****ed an unassailable majority in the way he did. It's actually lost on most people just how remarkable that is. History will never tire of talking about it)

The usual " traditionalists " (i.e. morons) who always harp on about how " oooooh it's the way we do things, we don't want to copy bloody foreigners " can **** right off.

We actually ALREADY use PR. All the devolved assemblies use some form of it. It's only Westminster & English local elections that still use FPTP. As always, England is the ****ing problem.

Of course, the reason it won't happen is the same as always. Labour & the Tories won't back it as they're happy to stay swapping around forever while the country goes to hell.

I don't claim it as a cure all. But it'd be a step in the right direction. Some people might even end up with their votes actually mattering for the first time in generations.

 

[jb5000]

Just on the not wanting to copy bloody foreigners line - it's a fun fact but true that the UK and the US bascially imposed PR systems on western europe after WW2 as means of keeping extremists out of power. Looking at the political discourse in both countries today makes for a bitter irony which I'm almost glad my grandfathers aren't here to see.

 

[big_mac4824]

It won't be worse. The more obvious corruption will be gone & the tone will change. Starmer will do whatever he's allowed to do by the businesses he's been vigourously sucking up to for most of this year, & the banks.
Starmer is essentially a modern Labour version of John Major. A bland, forgettable nothing with no real ideas. If he did have any ideas they'd soon be vetoed by the press & big business anyway so probably safer for him to not have any. Empty rhetoric wins elections these days, not policy.

The whole democracy problem has one solution & one only, PR. Thats always been the case.
The UK & the US suffer from the same problem, our voting systems are perfectly viable for the 19th century.

Every country in Europe uses some sort of PR & as a result there ends up being much more compromise & discussion in their domestic politics. It's of course not perfect but a hell of a lot better than the embarassing ****wittery of PMQs which functions as a perrenial national embarrassment on a weekly basis.

I've seen "landslide" election victories for Thatcher, Blair & Johnson in my lifetime. None of which saw the winning party get anywhere close to even 50% of the vote. To call that a landslide perfectly demonstates how ****ed up the system really is.

45% of the vote buys you a 75+ seat majority which absolutely guarantees that you can do whatever the **** you want for 5 years & renders opposition essentially worthless. You can't call that democracy.

( the only exception to the above of course, is a god level incompetent like Johnson. Literally nobody else in UK political history could have ****ed an unassailable majority in the way he did. It's actually lost on most people just how remarkable that is. History will never tire of talking about it)

The usual " traditionalists " (i.e. morons) who always harp on about how " oooooh it's the way we do things, we don't want to copy bloody foreigners " can **** right off.

We actually ALREADY use PR. All the devolved assemblies use some form of it. It's only Westminster & English local elections that still use FPTP. As always, England is the ****ing problem.

Of course, the reason it won't happen is the same as always. Labour & the Tories won't back it as they're happy to stay swapping around forever while the country goes to hell.

I don't claim it as a cure all. But it'd be a step in the right direction. Some people might even end up with their votes actually mattering for the first time in generations.

If PR was actually in then UKIP would have won a GE, mind you if PR was common place Paddy Ashdown would have been in government. The last Coalition Government at least held the Tories in check so to speak?

 

[Jeff]

If PR was actually in then UKIP would have won a GE,

They got 12.6% of the vote in 2015, by far their best general election result. Pretty sure that wouldn't count as winning the election.

 

[big_mac4824]

They got 12.6% of the vote in 2015, by far their best general election result. Pretty sure that wouldn't count as winning the election.

Jeff had PR been a thing it would have been more significant and it is rumored that it scared the hell out of both Labour and the Tories. I recall as a young man the Lib Dems really trying to push hard on PR, for obvious reasons, for me it makes sense to have it.

 

[popillius]

If PR was actually in then UKIP would have won a GE, mind you if PR was common place Paddy Ashdown would have been in government. The last Coalition Government at least held the Tories in check so to speak?

No they wouldn't.
Probably not.
No they didn't.

 

[homer]

If PR was actually in then UKIP would have won a GE

Wibble

 

[Blue Maniac]

Wibble

Professor of Wibble at Wibble University authors stream of wibble

Shocker

 

[fitz]

Jeff had PR been a thing it would have been more significant and it is rumored that it scared the hell out of both Labour and the Tories. I recall as a young man the Lib Dems really trying to push hard on PR, for obvious reasons, for me it makes sense to have it.

They absolutely wouldn't have won anything. The likes of UKIP's supposed popularity is disproportionately boosted by a wealthy few screaming about their popularity. They'd have caused the Tories some trouble in a few Gammon seats but in terms of general population wouldn't have made a dent. Not to say they've not been influential of course....they absolutely have despite their relatively minor support.

 

[fitz]

No they didn't.

Yeah that bit is the weirdest. Clegg ruined them ever being considered as an option. Helped by others obviously but the full arse was on show for those years.

 

[give_us_a_wave]

Yeah that bit is the weirdest. Clegg ruined them ever being considered as an option. Helped by others obviously but the full arse was on show for those years.

Yes. very weird.

Held the Tories in check ?

Well I guess it depends on how you define it.

In this case I'd define it as being more or less the same as going to Whitechapel in the 1880s & saying :

" Whilst we were sadly unable to prevent any of the Ripper murders, we were able to prevent the post mortem mutilation of ONE of the victims.

For a few hours. Before they sneaked back & did it when we weren't looking.

I think we deserve enormous credit for that "

 

[jb5000]

Are you seriously saying that this country is currently in no worse a position than it was in 2015? Everything, /Everything/, has seriously declined.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Are you seriously saying that this country is currently in no worse a position than it was in 2015? Everything, /Everything/, has seriously declined.

I have to assume someone whose posts I can’t see made this assertion

 

[pork pie fox]

The last Coalition Government at least held the Tories in check so to speak?

Ermmmmmmmmm. Yeah this is a long way from what happened.

 

[big_mac4824]

Ermmmmmmmmm. Yeah this is a long way from what happened.

if the tories had of obtained a majority then it could have been far different.

 

[pork pie fox]

if the tories had of obtained a majority then it could have been far different.

That’s not the point, though. You said the Lib Dems held them in check and I’m just saying that didn’t happen at all.

 

[jb5000]

That’s not the point, though. You said the Lib Dems held them in check and I’m just saying that didn’t happen at all.

What was it that held them in check then? Because they clearly got much much worse in 2015 for some reason

 

[pork pie fox]

What was it that held them in check then? Because they clearly got much much worse in 2015 for some reason

What could possibly have happened soon after 2015 to embolden them and make them worse than they already were…….

 

[fitz]

What was it that held them in check then? Because they clearly got much much worse in 2015 for some reason

The lib dems did nothing to keep them in check. By 2015 both Labour and Tories were offering to clamp down on immigration and the poor. Offering very little to choose from. Both parties had moved right to try and win that, Tories more convincingly. Tories were concerned by Ukip's slight popularity, the media's obsession with having farage on 24/7 (particularly the bbc) and pandered to that crowd more. Had the bnp been more popular in 2010 then Clegg would have offered to suck their balls once he was done with Cameron's.

 

[jb5000]

The lib dems did nothing to keep them in check. By 2015 both Labour and Tories were offering to clamp down on immigration and the poor. Offering very little to choose from. Both parties had moved right to try and win that, Tories more convincingly. Tories were concerned by Ukip's slight popularity, the media's obsession with having farage on 24/7 (particularly the bbc) and pandered to that crowd more. Had the bnp been more popular in 2010 then Clegg would have offered to suck their balls once he was done with Cameron's.

Stuff like the Pupil Premium, tax cuts for the working poor, equal marriage then, they must have all been part of some fever dream I had then. And as for the backbench tory MPs who published their Alternative Queen's Speech (https://conservativehome.com/2013/0...ueens-speech-the-full-list-of-40-rebel-bills/) in 2013 with such offerings as leaving the EU, ending subsidies for green power, and cutting foreign aid - while they will be much happier now I do wonder why they went to the effort if everything was the same? Sure, they've not brought back hanging yet, but what do you think the drive to leave the European Court of Human Rights is really about if not for them to have the freedom to use and abuse us proles as they see fit?
I'm no fan of it, but the coalition was miles better than what we have now, If you like it less, that's probably because it was a functioning government, whereas from the moment Clegg was booted out and Cameron had to work with all the members of his own parliamentery party things became unstuck. That's the reason no PM has lasted more than a couple of years since - Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and now Sunak have been able to do nothing about the blatent graft and had to continually promote the most racist bully available at the time - yes, some of them absolutely do like it but it's also been a cynical caluculation of the numbers they need to stay in office, numbers which they can only draw from their own backbenches.