Ja mata, TosaInu. You will forever be remembered.
Proud
Been to:
Swords Made of Letters - 1938. The war is looming in France - and Alexandre Reythier does not have much time left to protect his country. A novel set before the war.
A Painted Shield of Honour - 1313. Templar Knights in France are in grave danger. Can they be saved?
True, although if people refuse to mobalise there's not a lot you can do. Boris Johnson is really a centre-right politician who has pivoted more to the right because that's where the votes are - rather like Mitt Rommey in 2012. That being said, if Labour continue towards the hard left the Conservatives will become more moderate as people turned off from Labour gravitate to the "other" party and exert an intellectual gravity that drags them back to the centre. Eventually Labour will either concede to a new, more moderate, left-wing party or they will become more moderate themselves.
Ramsey Macdonald and Clem Attlee must be ashamed, though.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Unfortunately it is supposed. In practice, it is the largest minority ruling.
This is where a system like STV would come into play, as you need to reach a threshold of votes and also allows people to state their preferences more distinctly.
So for example, the person voting for the Brexit party who won't win may view the Conservatives as an alternative. Therefore, those who feel the same would have a transfer of votes to them and having a better reflection of the population (ie: that candidate represents lets say 42% of the area now, rather than 34%). Similar to the ideological aligned/pact of Greens & LibDems. It also helps reduce tactical voting as people are more likely to vote for the person/party who more closely represents their views, without feeling it has been 'wasted'.
Last edited by Beskar; 01-29-2020 at 20:23.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Interestingly, 14388 votes on the Telegraph website but Stammer and Long-Bailey level on 42%
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...rophic-defeat/
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Are you able to explain this a little better for me?
If I am understanding you correctly, you like this (which is different from this), and therefore you reject any systems which greatly encourage this.
If I understood you correctly, are you able explore your views of the criticisms?
As a side-note, I kind of see Majoritarian Democracy as what Marx meant by Tyranny of the Proletariat. ie: The workers have full control as they outnumber the bourgeoisie. In a very simplistic way.
Last edited by Beskar; 01-31-2020 at 00:26.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Well, the best system of government is a benign but competent Tyrant, as originally expounded by Aristotle and demonstrated by Terry Pratchett. So, anything else is a compromise designed to prevent the ascension of a malign Tyrant.
It's worth noting that recent elections, whilst not necessarily returning MP's with absolute majorities have tended to reflect the national mood. We threw Labour out in 2010 but were only lukewarm on Cameron whilst quite enchanted with Clegg - result was a Lib-Dem Coalition. In 2015 we were ready to give David Cameron an actual working majority after he legislated for something like a Living Wage and homosexual marriage. In 2017 a lot of us felt Theresa May was the wrong person for the job but even more so didn't want Corbyn - Hung Parliament with minority Conservative Government. Then, 2019 a lot of people a sick and./or afraid of Corbyn, his hypocrisy, his racism and his general incompetence whilst Boris Johnson is offering higher wages, lower taxes and an end to Brexit.
Result: Thundering Conservative Majority.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
In short:
I recognise that society must change, which means it must move outside of the experience of the status quo. because, events!
Because we are moving outside the status quo in response to events, i don't want public policy defined by the 'argument' the competing parties have in their understanding of each other.
It limits the range of change into too small a bandwidth.
What i see a majoritiarian electoral system giving me is radical policy (even if it is occasionally radical in the opposite direction to my preference).
Fail quickly, fail fast.
Adapt and thrive, fail and stagnate.
As a side effect of having to have the coalition in place before the election (within the party), it encourages the platform to be as wide as possible in order to appeal to an election winning common-ground as well as their voter heartlands. Where consensual systems lead to the coalition after the election (between parties), allowing manifesto's to be ejected, success/failure criteria difficult to establish, and permissive of fringe parties well outside the common ground to succeed, and be a part of policy making.
There's lots of good things about proportional/consensual politics, but lots of failings too.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Radical change - leaving something that the UK only joined under 50 years ago and changed several times in the meantime.
When was the success or failure of the EU established? Given that what was initially joined was radically different to what was left, there surely was a review at each change. Or not.
Or more broadly, when is there a review of every major policy decision the government takes undertaken? Practically never.
A desire to bang the drum on one issue is on one hand laudable in how many threads can be derailed to the one issue, but is also very, very wearing.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
yes. Precisely.
and you get to argue for some milquetoast consensual democracy where choice is carefully hemmed into a safe path via constitutional guardrails to make sure that tomorrow is quite like yesterday.
obviously, i think that is a terrible idea if we desire the long term survival of an adaptable and agile nation-state, but there we are...
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
After the last 25 years of shih tzu after shih tzu, duck hunt after duck hunt, I think I am truly sick of major spurr of the moment reform
I dont want yet another experiment nor do I want a foreign transplant from a different system I want the wreckage of the blair cameron and may years to be fixed or undone.
Last edited by Beskar; 02-02-2020 at 01:28. Reason: naughty words removed
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
You and others turned the discussion to the benefits of the current electoral system. Furunculus argued that the system gives a mandate for radical reform. So I asked him how long it would take for the most radical recent reform to be assessed. Is this not a natural progression of your thread of discussion? Or does radical reform exist as some kind of eternal revolution a la Mao Zedong that does not need to be assessed, merely embarked on without thought of consequences?
How do you assess change to be effective and positive if, as you argue, the principle of change is the only principle that needs to be observed, and results do not matter until some point in the distant future when all the participants are dead? You quote Zhou Enlai to support your argument as though he actually does, when Zhou was actually from the progressive branch of the CCP (his protege famously coined the black and white cat quote to decry dogmatism). Your argument for radical reform for radical reform's sake is more reminiscent of Mao Zedong's call for eternal revolution, aka the cultural revolution. That argument led to the destruction of China's historical heritage for the sake of change.
I think I can do without that kind of adaptation and agility. I actually admire Zhou Enlai's school of pragmatism, gradualism and cooperation, and I despise the Maoist doctrine of violent change for change's sake.
I don't have to take responsibility for gov't policy as an individual, none of us do, we're only one more feather on the scales of what is a collective action.
so asking how long do we wait to weigh success is impossible to answer.
i might wait six months.
you might demand six years.
a political party may ask for the patience to see through one more heave.
and the electorate may kerbstomp the gov't for trying their patience.
personally i work to the new labour mantra:
first term to make the reforms.
second term to embed them as normal.
if it survives a third term then you have become part of the myth and legend of the nation.
so ten years.
Last edited by Furunculus; 02-02-2020 at 09:34.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Last edited by Greyblades; 02-02-2020 at 02:00.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
I do understand the attraction of using swear-words, especially out loud, but the true joy of the English language is crafting insults that are both unmistakable in their intent whilst being simultaneously oh so difficult to pin down and object to.
It is the way that we cultivate our reputation as a race online so that the rest of the world can differentiate us from Americans.
Silence and stillness dear boy, on the surface.
Last edited by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus; 02-02-2020 at 20:56.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Last edited by Beskar; 02-02-2020 at 04:36.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
I have decided to find alternatives for swear words, thus I plan to heavily referr to this sheet from now on:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Greyblades; 02-02-2020 at 07:54.
So we got Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor as the leadership duo.
I confess, I was a Nandy man - as a consequence of her having an understanding of non-metropolitan labour.
That said, on an entirely different cultural battleground that the party also needs to win for the same non-metropolitan voterbase - he made the excellent choice of refusing to sign those silly trans pledges. identity politics is where the left-wing jumps the shark, and he at least seems to realise this.
We may soon have a competant Labour party to fill the role of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Hurray!
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
Got to be honest, Labour leadership hasn't been in the headlines at all. I got no idea who is who at the moment, other than vagueness.
Days since the Apocalypse began
"We are living in space-age times but there's too many of us thinking with stone-age minds" | How to spot a Humanist
"Men of Quality do not fear Equality." | "Belief doesn't change facts. Facts, if you are reasonable, should change your beliefs."
Truly?
You're politically interested and solidly left, i find it hard to grasp if you haven't got a position on the leadership.
Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar
"The only way that has ever been discovered to have a lot of people cooperate together voluntarily is through the free market. And that's why it's so essential to preserving individual freedom.” -- Milton Friedman
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." -- H. L. Mencken
Bookmarks