UK Politics Thread

[rory_20_uk]

Italy are trying something new: Link

Almost "leaning in" to the farce yet politicians do seem to be responding to it - and as the score can be tailored towards positive things that might help somewhat. Given effective oversight and any sort of penalty isn't likely to happen.

[Pannonian]

Italy are trying something new: Link

Almost "leaning in" to the farce yet politicians do seem to be responding to it - and as the score can be tailored towards positive things that might help somewhat. Given effective oversight and any sort of penalty isn't likely to happen.

Given that the current PM has his profile because of his appearances on a gameshow, I'm not sure how this is going to encourage reforming of behaviour.

[rory_20_uk]

Given that the current PM has his profile because of his appearances on a gameshow, I'm not sure how this is going to encourage reforming of behaviour.

Currently the system is based around treating democracy as something of a theatre - the latest debate has been cancelled since the 1922 Committee told the candidates that things are getting to the point that the general public might realise what they are like. So, no debate, and just behind the scenes fighting.

In the absence of any proper, rigorous, approach to ensuring the country is run well - which I have mentioned many times now - this might encourage better behaviour by rewarding politicians for some actions and punishing them for others. Because we don't know nor care who most of the politicians are and they do their own thing for 5 years with the populace voting based on party loyalty. If people were more interested in what politicians did, and they were scored for what they did then this is better than what we've currently got and ideally would lead to politicians actually worrying about what they do lest they might get voted out.

Again, I'm all for getting the HMRC in to audit the lot of them to get a handle on the dodgy dealings, get in investigators to check up on what they're doing with their donors, links etc and get the Police and the Courts to charge, convict and imprison wrongdoing because although some of what they do can be viewed as government business quite a lot isn't... But is such a robust approach likely to take place? No?

[Pannonian]

Currently the system is based around treating democracy as something of a theatre - the latest debate has been cancelled since the 1922 Committee told the candidates that things are getting to the point that the general public might realise what they are like. So, no debate, and just behind the scenes fighting.

In the absence of any proper, rigorous, approach to ensuring the country is run well - which I have mentioned many times now - this might encourage better behaviour by rewarding politicians for some actions and punishing them for others. Because we don't know nor care who most of the politicians are and they do their own thing for 5 years with the populace voting based on party loyalty. If people were more interested in what politicians did, and they were scored for what they did then this is better than what we've currently got and ideally would lead to politicians actually worrying about what they do lest they might get voted out.

Again, I'm all for getting the HMRC in to audit the lot of them to get a handle on the dodgy dealings, get in investigators to check up on what they're doing with their donors, links etc and get the Police and the Courts to charge, convict and imprison wrongdoing because although some of what they do can be viewed as government business quite a lot isn't... But is such a robust approach likely to take place? No?

What kind of reward is it? It's pretty clear that the biggest influence on public opinion is the image the media barons project in their media, and they arrive at that through deals with the politicians as to the policy platforms they run. It was bad enough in the past when they wanted individual policies and sets of policies to favour them. The Tory-Brexit era sees them wanting the whole country to follow their lead.

There is no functional democracy without a cleanup of the media and some semblance of journalistic standards, as opposed to them excusing every abuse under the sky in return for a politician in their pocket. Without that, the idea that every vote counts the same is severely flawed, as they need only get enough PR-influenced votes to get their lackey over the line, and then this democratic mandate can be used to justify absolutely everything in the British system.

NB. It was The Times, for long the last remaining right wing paper with some reputation left, who broke the story about Starmer's "beergate" (along with a Tory MP pushing the Durham police for an investigation). One which the Durham police concluded had no substance whatsoever, and which a former head of Durham police called a politically-motivated piece of smearing. The Telegraph, Mail and Express and worse have long lost their journalistic standards. The Times now has none either. How much of the electorate does that cover?

[Furunculus]

It's pretty clear that the biggest influence on public opinion is the image the media barons project in their media, and they arrive at that through deals with the politicians as to the policy platforms they run.

There is no functional democracy without a cleanup of the media and some semblance of journalistic standards

You're starting from a premise that i fundamentally don't accept: that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion rather than the opposite being the case. A quasi religious argument at best - on either side.

If you do accept that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion then yes, your solutions will lead you to media barons as the source of 'the problem'. They are the source of the deviancy pulling opinion away from public policy solutions that are 'proper'.

However, if you take the view that it is substantially public opinion that leads the media narrative, then attacks against the media barons seems like displacement activity. i.e. blaming them for the public not responding positively to the manifesto that you wish to push.

Given my entreaty for the left to "be relevant!" i think it is plain which side of the argument i fall on...

[rory_20_uk]

I think the two evils feed on each other.

Some years ago, someone pointed out the self evident fact that people choose the newspapers they read based on what they already think. So he chose to read the newspapers that he disliked - in this case as he thought how can he understand the average GP patient without reading the Daily Mail. I realised that I'd fallen into the same trap, tailoring the news I read based on what I already thought so I got reflected back at me the news through the prism of what I already thought.

Media outlets need to make money and the easiest way is giving people what they want - hence the cycle of only getting a version of events that fits with what you already think. Breaking this is extremely tough since these are for-profit organisations and they aren't going to accept massive loss of readers to be more balanced.

I try to anger-read my way through the Guardian and if I'm really wanting to get my Gen-X blood up I read the Metro - even the opinion columns. And looking at things that I might not have initially agreed with I have come to view Social Democracy is probably the ideal form of government rather than small state, individual freedom which is the view I had and was probably strongly influenced from my father.

But the Point is that this was a conscious choice to act against my innate nature.

[Furunculus]

I think the two evils feed on each other.

Some years ago, someone pointed out the self evident fact that people choose the newspapers they read based on what they already think. So he chose to read the newspapers that he disliked - in this case as he thought how can he understand the average GP patient without reading the Daily Mail. I realised that I'd fallen into the same trap, tailoring the news I read based on what I already thought so I got reflected back at me the news through the prism of what I already thought.

Media outlets need to make money and the easiest way is giving people what they want - hence the cycle of only getting a version of events that fits with what you already think. Breaking this is extremely tough since these are for-profit organisations and they aren't going to accept massive loss of readers to be more balanced.

I try to anger-read my way through the Guardian and if I'm really wanting to get my Gen-X blood up I read the Metro - even the opinion columns. And looking at things that I might not have initially agreed with I have come to view Social Democracy is probably the ideal form of government rather than small state, individual freedom which is the view I had and was probably strongly influenced from my father.

But the Point is that this was a conscious choice to act against my innate nature.

happy to agree with that.

and i do spend way more time reading the guardian than i ever do the telegraph.
though i do recognise the problem you speak to in that you have to choose to do this - and still i never make time for the mail/mirror/express.

likewise - i deliberately follow interesting left wing people who are willing to engage and discuss (not much point following the ranters). but here too is the problem, as I use social media to get interesting people to bring the things that interest to my attention. and if my interests are heavily slanted towards technology/politics/foriegn-policy, then i am stove-piping my 'feed' to the mind-sets that are most prevalent in those areas.

still, i can't accept the notion that it is substantially the media that leads public opinion. it doesn't fit my own experience (or yours), and accepting it as a general principal is simply too dismal to the prospects for human civilisation.