UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down

[Rippounet]

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

What are you arguing for?  Minority rule?

That some important decisions may require more than a simple majority of votes cast.
It's not exactly a new idea, lots of people have remarked on this before, regardless of their political leanings.

It says a lot that FNR and I can agree on this:

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I actually feel discomfort at the idea of close results enabling major changes as well. Because next time the close result may not go one’s way. And in a polarised society that can have far reaching consequences for the 49% of the population who don’t agree.

Precisely.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Sorry that things did not go your way, but I think you should just accept that your side lost the vote. 

Since I'm focusing on Brexit here "my side" did not lose that vote because "my side" was never clearly unequivocally against it.

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Maybe if your team adjusted your attitude to that of public servant, rather than of master transformers for whom the populace are your clay -- just a bunch of delinquents to be bullied into reformation -- maybe voters will trust you more next time, and will be more inclined to listen to your good ideas, if any.  

5 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

Socialism is not "by definition" democratic, except in the communist totalitarian sense of "democracy".

Thank you for confirming my suspicions about you in such an unambiguous fashion.

[Jeor]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I actually feel discomfort at the idea of close results enabling major changes as well. Because next time the close result may not go one’s way. And in a polarised society that can have far reaching consequences for the 49% of the population who don’t agree.

This is a major weakness of the modern, integrated world. My answer - significant and radical devolution of power down to local community level to the maximum extent practically possible - runs directly against the modern globalist agenda.

I totally agree with this sentiment (close results enabling major changes is a problem).

But I think we are generally stuck with majority voting. Firstly, the party in power would never set up a supermajority situation as it's directly against their interests. Secondly, even if they did, eventually the party in power will do everything they can to remove impediments to that power (as we've seen through the death of the US Senate filibuster).

Australia had a specific solution, in that they codified rules on referendums into the Constitution. For one to pass, there's a requirement of majority of votes nationwide, and a majority of the states (i.e. 4 states out of 6) in a compulsory vote. It's a pretty high bar and no surprise only 8 out of 44 have passed. But Australia only managed to do that because it's in the Constitution so now the rules can't be changed (except by another referendum!).

I think it's another reason why the UK is stuck with first past the post. The party in power presumably gets there because FPTP worked for them. They're not going to dismantle that. The only workable gambit is proposing it in an election manifesto in the hope that this will win you government (or influence in a coalition) by FPTP, a complicated proposition that hasn't worked out yet.

[Platypus Rex]

7 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I actually feel discomfort at the idea of close results enabling major changes as well. Because next time the close result may not go one’s way. And in a polarised society that can have far reaching consequences for the 49% of the population who don’t agree.

I'm not arguing against checks and balances.  Nor am I arguing in favor of unchecked mob rule.  I don't idolize or worship "the will of the people".  I am merely arguing against the idea that "the will of the people" becomes a meaningless concept merely because the turnout may be modest and the results narrow.  And I do support democracy to at least some extent.

On those rare occasions when the rules of our oligarchic institutions give the common people a snowballs chance in hell of influencing the outcome on some significant issue, I think we should respect that, even when, or perhaps especially when, that outcome goes against the opinions of the elites.

If the narrow vote goes the way the elites want, then perhaps, in that case, you can be cynical and say that the sheeple are merely doing what they are told.  But that's harder to argue when it goes the other way.  And the argument that the Brexit referendum was meaningless as an expression of the will of the people becomes more difficult to maintain with each subsequent election.

Certainly, the Brexit issue is one issue upon which I have no problem with the idea that the people of the UK ought to have had a say in such things.  Would it have been better if the results of the referendum had been honored without the necessity of a massive Tory victory 3.5 years later?  May well be.

[Which Tyler]

10.45 tonight, ITV

The Dirty War on the NHS

https://youtu.be/ZTnIOh6yl6Y

[Platypus Rex]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Since I'm focusing on Brexit here "my side" did not lose that vote because "my side" was never clearly unequivocally against it.

My impression is that you are anti-Brexit.  I did not mean to refer to your party, and I'm not sure what else you mean by "my side".

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Thank you for confirming my suspicions about you in such an unambiguous fashion.

You suspected that I don't believe that socialism is democratic "by definition"?  Well, you were right.  

[A wilding]

1 hour ago, Platypus Rex said:

On those rare occasions when the rules of our oligarchic institutions give the common people a snowballs chance in hell of influencing the outcome on some significant issue, I think we should respect that, even when, or perhaps especially when, that outcome goes against the opinions of the elites.

If the narrow vote goes the way the elites want, then perhaps, in that case, you can be cynical and say that the sheeple are merely doing what they are told.  But that's harder to argue when it goes the other way.  And the argument that the Brexit referendum was meaningless as an expression of the will of the people becomes more difficult to maintain with each subsequent election.

This all buys into the narrative that "the elites" as a block wanted the UK to remain. Which is of course one of the lies put out by Johnson, Farage and their ilk, and also pushed relentlessly by the overwhelmingly pro-Brexit media. Though they did start soft pedalling on it after the first million or so strong anti Brexit demo.

[Werthead]

Quote

What are you arguing for?  Minority rule?

Both the UK and USA currently employ political systems which make minority rule possible, and both currently have minority-elected leaders.

Socialism is by definition more democratic than capitalism because in a socialist system (not a communist one) the responsibility and power flows both ways: the people gain benefits from the system comparable to what they put in. In a capitalist system that does not happen, and instead wealth and power flows into the hands of the already rich and benefited, and stays there. Any benefits to the people are sops to keep them happy rather than any kind of kind of system, long-term change to make their lives better. It is why the Conservative Party has, since WWII, transferred far more money out of the country or just flat out wasted it than Labour (even when adjusted for their different times in power).

Our current system isn't actually a fully capitalist or a socialist one, but somewhere inbetween, weighted more towards capitalism. The Conservative direction of travel is to strip away the remaining socialist aspects of our society (most notably the NHS) to benefit the already wealthy. The dichotomy Boris finds himself in is that he's just won a huge majority by appealing to Labour voters (albeit a relatively small number) and he now thinks he can keep them. Because Boris isn't a wedded idealogue but a naked populist, he finds himself with a choice of listening to the hard right of the Tory Party, who are in the ascendance, and rinsing Britain for all it's worth, or keeping his position as PM and appeal as a man of the people for potentially 10-15 years to come, which requires him to actually start doing things that are useful for the population, which by definition means moving in a more leftwards direction.

Which choice he makes will be intriguing.

[The Anti-Targ]

On 12/16/2019 at 3:48 PM, Jeor said:

As the resident conservative (and probably only one) in the Aussies thread I've often wondered this.

1. I suspect the board population has an age bias, skewing towards younger people. We know that older voters are heavily more conservative. The need for some technological engagement (combined with the sci-fi fantasy thing) probably means that the proportion of people 55-60+ years and over is quite small on this board compared to the overall population. That's a significant chunk of the voting population that is missing.

2. I think your average conservative voter just wants to be left alone whereas your average left-wing voter has to agitate for change, so there is a tendency for the left to be more vocal on message boards like this. Yes, I know there are far right-wing activists out there that yell loudly too, but by definition the average conservative is generally satisfied with the status quo (or only wants incremental change) so feels less of a need for political engagement than a progressive. Hence fewer conservatives cropping up on message boards like this.

I think reason (1) is probably more solid than (2). Scifi/fantasy has become more mainstream but perhaps there's a bit of selection bias in there too.

Far simpler than that IMO. People who read fantasy fiction tend to be better educated than average, better educated people tend to be more progressive / left in their political views.

Quote

Despite this being the 'Brexit election,' the largest survey yet on last week’s general election has revealed the UK is as much divided along age and education lines as it is Remain versus Leave.

The YouGov survey found men are more likely to vote Conservative, that Labour voters are educated to a higher level while those who ticked Tory on polling day are more loyal to the party.

And for the USA in 2016: In the 2016 election, a wide gap in presidential preferences emerged between those with and without a college degree. College graduates backed Clinton by a 9-point margin (52%-43%), while those without a college degree backed Trump 52%-44%. This is by far the widest gap in support among college graduates and non-college graduates in exit polls dating back to 1980.

My other guess is conservatives are generally less into fantasy fiction, esp religious conservatives.

And this interesting finding:

Quote

And despite their 'Get Brexit Done' message, the Conservatives managed to hold onto two thirds of their Remain-backing voters.

 

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Platypus Rex said:

My impression is that you are anti-Brexit.

I have given no opinion on Brexit itself, I merely object to the ludicrous idea that the entire affair is somehow a victory for British democracy.

[Werthead]

45 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Far simpler than that IMO. People who read fantasy fiction tend to be better educated than average, better educated people tend to be more progressive / left in their political views.

My other guess is conservatives are generally less into fantasy fiction, esp religious conservatives.

And this interesting finding:

 

Well, there is Terry Goodkind and latter-day Orson Scott Card for those kind of people.

As for the latter point, yes, the primary achievement of the Conservative Party has been maintaining party unity. Really they should be 2-3 separate parties, but they've managed to retain a broad base approach (well, until recently anyway) instead of fracturing. In reality, Labour and the Greens should possibly be the same party, and maybe the LibDems (although the gulf between Labour and the LibDems has yawned much wider since around 2005). The Conservative Party traditionally extends from centrists to a reasonably mid-right position (with a few far right outliers, although they mostly decamped to UKIP and the Brexit Party), whilst the same space on the left is filled by three (four if you include the SNP and discount their regional interest) opposition parties, and Britain's FPTP system rewards big, broad-base unified parties and punishes smaller ones.

The Tories could have fractured under the strain of Brexit and came close, but it looks like they will have weathered the initial storm. As I said, I think there will then be another battle between those who want to expand the Conservative appeal to include and retain the former left-wing voters from Labour, which by default means moving centrewards again, or by doubling down on their right-wing direction of travel, which could blow up in their faces. Having a stonking massive majority means you have no excuses for not fixing the things that need fixing, just as Blair was left flummoxed whenever anyone asked him why he didn't pursue electoral reform, House of Lords reform or introducing gay rights when he and New Labour had three terms with huge majorities to get those things done.

[Melifeather]

On 12/15/2019 at 5:18 PM, Chaircat Meow said:

The Tories now have a majority to continue their great scheme of humiliating and diminishing our country further. Please carry on. 

I feel your pain. It's much the same in America, only we have a President who would very much like to be our king.

[Jeor]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Far simpler than that IMO. People who read fantasy fiction tend to be better educated than average, better educated people tend to be more progressive / left in their political views.

You're right, but I think the age selection of the board has to be a major component, too. How many over 60s do we have on the board? And what would be the median age of boarders?

I suspect in both cases the numbers would be far less than the actual population.

[williamjm]

9 hours ago, Jeor said:

I think it's another reason why the UK is stuck with first past the post. The party in power presumably gets there because FPTP worked for them. They're not going to dismantle that. The only workable gambit is proposing it in an election manifesto in the hope that this will win you government (or influence in a coalition) by FPTP, a complicated proposition that hasn't worked out yet.

I suppose it could also happen if the party in power thought they were going to lose the next election badly and wanted to put some limits on the party likely to win. It's probably going to be a balance between how worried they are about losing an advantage and how afraid they are of another party getting a big majority. I've heard it suggested that the Scottish Parliament's PR system was set up by Labour primarily to avoid any risk of the SNP getting a majority (they did once manage it despite that), even if it probably denied a few Labour majorities back when they dominated Scottish politics.

[Werthead]

3 minutes ago, williamjm said:

I suppose it could also happen if the party in power thought they were going to lose the next election badly and wanted to put some limits on the party likely to win. It's probably going to be a balance between how worried they are about losing an advantage and how afraid they are of another party getting a big majority. I've heard it suggested that the Scottish Parliament's PR system was set up by Labour primarily to avoid any risk of the SNP getting a majority (they did once manage it despite that), even if it probably denied a few Labour majorities back when they dominated Scottish politics.

I think Blair's idea was that Labour was going to permanently stay a centrist party, so there was no need to introduce electoral reform to help Labour win again in the future.

There's also the fact that replacing FPTP with PR does create a lot of issues. Assuming people still want local representation, it would also mean possibly abolishing the Lords and getting a proper second elected chamber, which is a colossal (and expensive) overhaul of the British political system, which is a battle no one really relishes.

Of course, the alternative is that you have parties with less than half the vote ruling like they've won a major landslide, which is also a big problem.

[A wilding]

I think Labour's support for FPTP is key to its survival. They support it because it gives them a guarantee that they will be in power at least some of the time, on the occasions that the Tories have made themselves so hated that voters vote tactically against them.

At the same time I have lost count of the number of Labour supporters who have over the years said to me variants of "you must vote Labour, as any other vote will be wasted and will let the Tories in". (Sometimes I have even heard them say to others "you must not even stand, as that risks splitting the vote and letting to Tories in".) To which I generally make the obvious rejoinder.

 

[williamjm]

3 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I think Blair's idea was that Labour was going to permanently stay a centrist party, so there was no need to introduce electoral reform to help Labour win again in the future.

There's also the fact that replacing FPTP with PR does create a lot of issues. Assuming people still want local representation, it would also mean possibly abolishing the Lords and getting a proper second elected chamber, which is a colossal (and expensive) overhaul of the British political system, which is a battle no one really relishes.

They could use the Scottish Parliament system where each person gets one vote in their constituency using FPTP and one regional vote using PR with the regional vote being adjusted so that parties who do well in the FPTP part need more votes to get MSPs elected. This might lose the simplicity of FPTP or a more straightfoward PR system but it has the advantage that the overall outcome is still proportional but there is still a local representative.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

You're right, but I think the age selection of the board has to be a major component, too. How many over 60s do we have on the board? And what would be the median age of boarders?

I suspect in both cases the numbers would be far less than the actual population.

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

[Platypus Rex]

6 hours ago, Werthead said:

Both the UK and USA currently employ political systems which make minority rule possible, and both currently have minority-elected leaders.

Are you arguing that we should not honor the results of the referendum?   Because that's the context I was discussing.

Quote

Socialism is by definition more democratic than capitalism because in a socialist system (not a communist one) the responsibility and power flows both ways: the people gain benefits from the system comparable to what they put in. In a capitalist system that does not happen, and instead wealth and power flows into the hands of the already rich and benefited, and stays there. Any benefits to the people are sops to keep them happy rather than any kind of kind of system, long-term change to make their lives better. It is why the Conservative Party has, since WWII, transferred far more money out of the country or just flat out wasted it than Labour (even when adjusted for their different times in power).

Our current system isn't actually a fully capitalist or a socialist one, but somewhere inbetween, weighted more towards capitalism. The Conservative direction of travel is to strip away the remaining socialist aspects of our society (most notably the NHS) to benefit the already wealthy.

What I am saying is very simple.  I believe in democracy to at least some limited extent.  I believe in giving the people at least some say in government, as a check on the power of their rulers.  So basically, I think socialism is more democratic when people actually vote for it, and less democratic when it is imposed on them against their will.

I believe democracy serves as a check on the power of elites.  It checks the power of elites who are, in some sense, socialists.  It checks the power of those elites who are in some sense capitalists.  I was not talking about absolute, pure, ideal socialism, which as far as I can tell has no relevance to any context.

Obviously, my definition of democracy is different from yours.  For me, it means some level of participation in the process of government, by voting (together with respect for the results of those votes).  For you apparently, it means common ownership of the means of production and common sharing in the results thereof ... or something along those lines.

All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  I get the impression that you think socialism is by definition benevolent, and ceases to be socialism the instant it becomes corrupted into (for instance) communism.  But these semantic ideas are not useful to a voter who must decide whether to give a politician the awesome power that may corrupt him.   The voter does not know the future, so how can he know if he is supporting (idealized) "socialism" or not.

Quote

The dichotomy Boris finds himself in is that he's just won a huge majority by appealing to Labour voters (albeit a relatively small number) and he now thinks he can keep them. Because Boris isn't a wedded idealogue but a naked populist, he finds himself with a choice of listening to the hard right of the Tory Party, who are in the ascendance, and rinsing Britain for all it's worth, or keeping his position as PM and appeal as a man of the people for potentially 10-15 years to come, which requires him to actually start doing things that are useful for the population, which by definition means moving in a more leftwards direction.

There you go with the "by definition" stuff again.  Your terms are VERY loaded.  And it almost sounds like you are distinguishing the "naked populist" who at least pretends to appeal to voter concerns, from the "man of the people" who gives the people is good for them (in Werthead's opinion) whether they like it or not.

That said, I don't know if the Labour voters will regret voting for Boris or not.  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, williamjm said:

I suppose it could also happen if the party in power thought they were going to lose the next election badly and wanted to put some limits on the party likely to win. It's probably going to be a balance between how worried they are about losing an advantage and how afraid they are of another party getting a big majority. I've heard it suggested that the Scottish Parliament's PR system was set up by Labour primarily to avoid any risk of the SNP getting a majority (they did once manage it despite that), even if it probably denied a few Labour majorities back when they dominated Scottish politics.

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.

[Jeor]

5 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.

39 might be the tipping point, but the heavily conservative age groups happen later on, so I think the board is probably still missing an important demographic there.

3 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.

I think referendums are much more difficult in the UK, as specific legislation regarding format etc has to be introduced each time and that introduces another fight just on its own. It's a big machine to get going. With a written Constitution in theory it's much easier to set one up because the rules are all clearly laid out each time (e.g. Australia). But we probably shouldn't go there about a written constitution...