UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down

[Squab]

On 12/16/2019 at 11:53 AM, Platypus Rex said:

Having browsed through the last thread, I was struck, as I frequently am when browsing the political threads on this forum, on how one-sided the discussion is.    I am curious as to why this would be.  This is a forum in theory open to any poster who has a taste or interest in medieval-themed fantasy.   Why would the opinions of the posters on this forum be so radically unrepresentative of people who actually vote?

I can think of a number of possible answers, but I don't want to speculate.  I'm just interested in such thoughts as the regulars here might have.

Conformitism isn't popular on the right anymore.

[ants]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The way we got unstuck from FPTP was having a referendum (2 actually). The UK is probably tired of hearing the r-word for now, but it's really the way to go. Have the referendum at the same time as the next GE, which would potentially be the last FPTP GE, and then the follow GE would be under the new system. Or there could be 2 referendums: Ref 1 what is the preferred PR system? Allows people to get educated on different forms of PR and allows people to vote for a PR system without having to feel that they have to commit to changing the system. Then (a binding) Ref 2 a run off between the PR system that got the most votes in Ref 1 and FPTP.

Ref 1 happens soon after the next GE, ref 2 happens at the same time as the next GE which remains a FPTP GE, then assuming parliament lasts 5 years after that FPTP GE there is 5 years to get things prepped and ready for the PR system.

They did have a referendum on changing FPTP to preferential voting 6-8 years ago.  The Lib Dems made it a requirement of coalition.  Of course then Labour and the Torries both ran against it, there were lies about it (e.g. that Australians don't like it.  Untrue.)  And it lost badly.

Ironically, if there had been preferential voting then Cameron wouldn't have had to promise a referendum on Brexit since UKIP/Brexit wouldn't have split his vote, and Labour wouldn't have been hurt in this election by people going Green/Lib Dem instead of Labour (assuming they would have put the Torries last).  

[ants]

On 12/16/2019 at 12:53 PM, Platypus Rex said:

Having browsed through the last thread, I was struck, as I frequently am when browsing the political threads on this forum, on how one-sided the discussion is.    I am curious as to why this would be.  This is a forum in theory open to any poster who has a taste or interest in medieval-themed fantasy.   Why would the opinions of the posters on this forum be so radically unrepresentative of people who actually vote?

I can think of a number of possible answers, but I don't want to speculate.  I'm just interested in such thoughts as the regulars here might have.

I'd be curious on whether or not there are many forums which aren't slanted one way or another.  It is very hard to debate legitimately when you're getting piled on by lots of people who disagree with you, and centrist positions have generally dropped off over time (and centrists are probably less interested in politics generally).  

[Jeor]

41 minutes ago, ants said:

Ironically, if there had been preferential voting then Cameron wouldn't have had to promise a referendum on Brexit since UKIP/Brexit wouldn't have split his vote, and Labour wouldn't have been hurt in this election by people going Green/Lib Dem instead of Labour (assuming they would have put the Torries last).  

Yes, there's a lot to be said for preferential voting as a system, and it does seem to give more legitimacy. Of course, in Australia there are complaints about "preference deals", but since they're never binding (voters can do whatever they want) I don't think it's much of an issue, and certainly not enough to outweigh the clear benefits.

But the heavy defeat of the 2011 referendum shows it'll never get up. It's only the Liberal Democrats pushing it and so voters for the main parties know that the current system works for them, and there's no reason to give another party a leg up.

To go to current issues, Boris wants to give himself a hard deadline of end-2020? It seems like a truly bewildering move. He has the whip hand, and now wants to box himself into having to strike a trade deal by the end of 2020 otherwise basically no-deal actually happens? That move is either insanely confident or suicidal.

 

[ants]

Most of the concerns around preference deals are also with the Senate, where the whole preference system is a lot more arcane (and the impetus to vote above the line a lot greater).  For the direct representative, copying in the list off a flyer is annoying, so I doubt anyone really follows it.  Its only this situation which is relevant to the UK.

The Lib Dems were idiots for making a requirement of joining the Torries in power a referendum.  They should have just said it is a deal breaker, change the laws or we're not in. 

[Squab]

3 hours ago, ants said:

I'd be curious on whether or not there are many forums which aren't slanted one way or another.  It is very hard to debate legitimately when you're getting piled on by lots of people who disagree with you, and centrist positions have generally dropped off over time (and centrists are probably less interested in politics generally).  

Political correctness is fascism masquerading as manners. If you can get out of that, then its more balanced but its the gutter. And not even slightly. Its wading though a lot of poo for something thats not even great but at least its balanced

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Interesting BBC article on former PM Blair's criticism of Corbyn's leadership in the lead up to this election:

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50829352

From the article:

Mr Blair said "it would have been better" if Mr Corbyn had just said he was pro-Brexit, in line with his longstanding Euroscepticism.

"When things are really tough in politics, you might as well do what you believe in, because at least you'll be more convincing defending it," he said.

Mr Blair insisted his criticism of Mr Corbyn as leader was not an attack on him "as a person".

But he added: "People saw him as fundamentally opposing what Britain and Western countries stand for."

Mr Corbyn personified "a brand of quasi-revolutionary socialism - mixing far-left economic policy with deep hostility to Western foreign policy" - and that this combination "never has and never will" appeal to traditional Labour voters, he argued.

And the far-left "protest movement" which was born out of Mr Corbyn's leadership was supported by "cult trimmings" and was "utterly incapable" of being voted in as a "credible government".

Turning to allegations of anti-Semitism in Labour, he said: "The failure to deal with it is a matter of disgust that left some of us who voted Labour feeling for the first time in our lives conflicted about doing it."

He also hit back at Mr Corbyn's claim that Labour's policies were popular, arguing that individual policies, such as renationalising the railways, may have been popular but taken together, the party's manifesto was a "100-page wish list".

"Any fool can promise everything for free - but the people weren't fooled," he added.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

41 minutes ago, Squab said:

Political correctness is fascism masquerading as manners. If you can get out of that, then its more balanced but its the gutter. And not even slightly. Its wading though a lot of poo for something thats not even great but at least its balanced

excuse me?  can you give me one example of political correctness being fascism.  cos I think at least one of those words does not mean the same thing to you as it does to me.

 

Political correctness = equality.  

 

People who hate political correctness are often in a privileged group seeing their privileged position now under threat as the disadvantaged are now getting a more equal footing.

[Squab]

17 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

excuse me?  can you give me one example of political correctness being fascism.  cos I think at least one of those words does not mean the same thing to you as it does to me.

 

Political correctness = equality.  

 

People who hate political correctness are often in a privileged group seeing their privileged position now under threat as the disadvantaged are now getting a more equal footing.

Different people are offended by different things and when someone uses being offended as a reason to shut down someone, by definition that “offended” person is privileged. 

 

Quite frankly, its hard to discuss taboo topics

[Jeor]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Interesting BBC article on former PM Blair's criticism of Corbyn's leadership in the lead up to this election:

Yes, I saw that article. It's hardly surprising that he would be criticising Corbyn's dragging the party left.

I do think Blair has a point, though, and however much people might detest him for Iraq, he still remains the only Labour election-winner in the last 40 years, and a three-time one at that; it was no flash in the pan. Some of Labour's individual policies in this election might have been vote-winners but I think the overall flavour was far too radical - nothing was off limits, everything needed to change, and that frightened off people. I think the electorate can digest one or two big signature, transformative policies, but not everything at once.

Corbyn may have attracted some true believers but he lost a bulk in the middle - and I'm not sure with the way Labour elect their leadership with the grassroots membership (which leans much further left) that that's going to improve.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

17 minutes ago, Squab said:

Different people are offended by different things and when someone uses being offended as a reason to shut down someone, by definition that “offended” person is privileged. 

 

Quite frankly, its hard to discuss taboo topics honestly because fascists shut it down

what things are being shut down by these so called fascists?

 

cos it looks to me that you are suggesting people demanding BoJo apologise or somehow retract his words when he said that Muslim women look like letterboxes, makes Muslim women somehow more privileged than our PM.

 

[mormont]

14 minutes ago, Jeor said:

Yes, I saw that article. It's hardly surprising that he would be criticising Corbyn's dragging the party left.

I do think Blair has a point, though, and however much people might detest him for Iraq, he still remains the only Labour election-winner in the last 40 years, and a three-time one at that; it was no flash in the pan. Some of Labour's individual policies in this election might have been vote-winners but I think the overall flavour was far too radical - nothing was off limits, everything needed to change, and that frightened off people. I think the electorate can digest one or two big signature, transformative policies, but not everything at once.

I don't even think it was that. I think the electorate would have been willing to vote for a radical change. 

The problem was that the conversation was never, or rarely, about those policies. It was always about Corbyn and Brexit, the two things that lost Labour votes. And Labour in this election had zero ability to get the conversation back to what they wanted to talk about, the ground that suited them. You can blame the media for that all you like, but all that's doing is admitting you're no good at modern politics. Since we're talking about him, Blair could do that twenty years ago. Neither Corbyn nor McDonnell nor any of their team could do it in the last few weeks. 

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Squab said:

Different people are offended by different things and when someone uses being offended as a reason to shut down someone, by definition that “offended” person is privileged. 

 

Quite frankly, its hard to discuss taboo topics

Ah yes, the lament of the mediocre white chud: political correctness is a dire threat, and asking people not to use offensive words is akin to Mussolini. Jesus Creeping Shit, what a bunch of soft, namby snowflakes the right has become.

[Jen'ari]

16 hours ago, SeanF said:

I'm not sure age is such a big deal.  39 is the age at which more people started voting Conservative, rather than Labour.

It depends on other things than age too, I voted Tory at 22 and 27, abstained in 2017 and this last election,at 31 I voted Lib Dem, firstly because I’m opposed to Brexit, secondly because I’d say I’m very centrist, and they’re becoming a little too right leaning for me.

 

[A wilding]

On this thread leaning left:

While I would tend to agree with this, in UK terms the thread averages only centre left (which apparently for right leaning US people is still equivalent to full on communist).  It is not full of Corbyn fan boys for example (well we did have one a few months ago, but they did not last long). We have seen a great deal of criticism of Labour. And crucially, in general most posts consist of reasoned argument. I would say that there is not by any means a mindless circle jerk.

Also, personally I would love to to hear some reasoned defence of positions further to the right, say for example an argument that Johnson isn't just a smarter English version of Trump who went to Eton. Or that the NHS is safe in Tory hands (or alternatively that it would be for the best if it was replaced by something else). Because my impression of most right wingers that do wander into this thread is that they tend to just quote right wing memes as though that in itself was enough to win an argument: "political correctness", "traditional values", socialism (as an insult), "liberal elite", "left-leaning press", etc.

Though one interesting point is how much this board skews Remain. At the risk of being partisan I can't escape the thought it it may be something to do with the fact that the only good argument for Brexit is the referendum result.

 

[BigFatCoward]

If Thornberry is the answer, wtf is the question? 

[HexMachina]

8 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

If Thornberry is the answer, wtf is the question? 

Who could we possibly pick that will be worse for the party than Corbyn?

[Platypus Rex]

7 hours ago, DanteGabriel said:

Ah yes, the lament of the mediocre white chud: political correctness is a dire threat, and asking people not to use offensive words is akin to Mussolini. Jesus Creeping Shit, what a bunch of soft, namby snowflakes the right has become.

You are not actually responding to anything he said.  You are just engaging in racially charged personal attack.  Nobody said we should not all try to be polite, but nobody is perfect, and it seems that there is always one rule for me but not for thee.

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, Platypus Rex said:

You are not actually responding to anything he said.  You are just engaging in racially charged personal attack.  Nobody said we should not all try to be polite, but nobody is perfect, and it seems that there is always one rule for me but not for thee.

I've seen enough from Squab over the years to know that engaging with whatever resentful shitposting he pretends to be arguments is futile. 

Political correctness is liberal fascism? Have people been murdered or marched off to prison camps for refusing to use requested gender pronouns? What exactly am I supposed to engage with there?

[Rippounet]

22 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

I was not talking about absolute, pure, ideal socialism, which as far as I can tell has no relevance to any context.

You could switch to socialism almost overnight with a law saying all means of production should be owned through some form of cooperative.
You don't even need to give power to anyone, such a major decision could be taken through a referendum.
It won't happen but that's not because it's impossible, it's because the various potential combinations of democracy and socialism aren't well understood.
As a more realistic proposal, platform cooperativism has the potential to end capitalism if we really wanted to.