Bolitics The New Condem Government

[lapal_fan]

Whilst I haven't seen any silly photos of any politicians - I'd say "image" is a huge gauge in to how marketable a party is.

 

Barack Obama comes across as much more approachable than his opposition.

 

Blair used his laid back, cool guy (sort of) image well.

 

The fact Milliband cannot speak very well, without looking a bit like wallace means people who aren't listening to their TV's but see his face call him a prat or that he looks weird.

 

First impressions are a huge part of our culture - whether that's a good thing or not, is a completely different issue.

 

I mean.. William Hague for god's sake the human man baby.

[Risso]

 

 

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

 

 

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever.

[mjmooney]

 

Political voting has become all too 'Pop Idol'. How on earth can we elect our government based on the parties' leaders' appearance, or whether they 'seem like a good bloke'?  

 

What percentage of voters have the faintest idea what the various parties' actual policies are, and what they mean in relation to their own lives? 

 

I'm starting to think that there should be an educational qualification for voting. 

 

This is the thought you dare not say out loud, even in a democracy, should there be some basic test of competence to place a vote.

 

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

 

Here's another thought experiment for you: 

 

You know those websites that ask you a bunch of questions, and based on your answers tell you which party you are most closely aligned with? 

 

How about we use those for voting. You don't choose a party or an individual candidate, instead you answer (say) thirty questions on various issues, and it allocates your vote for you. 

 

People might be a bit surprised that the party that really suits their views isn't the one they thought it was. 

[Xann]

Maybe we've got this all wrong?

 

Back to Monarchy. Let's make Harry Warrior King.

 

Unite the home nations and go empire building again.

 

It's about time we used the Channel Tunnel to best effect, the invasion of Europe.

 

Wait til the Tour De France is over here, then send a few divisions of tanks into France.

 

If our troops arrive mid morning in Calais, we should be in control of Paris by tea time.

 

With the French and UK's nuclear arsenal under our control, the rest of the EU should come on board.

 

Russia should be easiest of the lot. Tell them "Nuke us and we'll glass our own tax havens".

 

The thought of losing their ill gotten gains squirreled away in the Cayman Islands will shit them right up -  politicians, oligarchs, the lot.

 

We offer them the status of Subject State. They get to keep some of the trappings of status, but with no real power - they'll have our hands off.

 

Next the US. We invade Mexico, create a Welfare State and a National Health Service. Mexicans flood back to Mexico, leaving the US with no one to pick crops or operate agricultural machinery.

 

They'll starve within 18 months.

 

China... I'm working on.....

[chrisp65]

 

 

 

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

 

 

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever.

 

 

See, back in the day I was all for Michael Foot and his duffle coat because I thought that was the way to get my mates in militant tendency more influence.

 

I guess we wouldn't have been obvious drinking buddies back then.

[chrisp65]

 

 

It's about time we used the Channel Tunnel to best effect, the invasion of Europe.

 

Wait til the Tour De France is over here, then send a few divisions of tanks into France.

 

If our troops arrive mid morning in Calais, we should be in control of Paris by tea time.

 

With the French and UK's nuclear arsenal under our control, the rest of the EU should come on board.

 

 

 

If we do it on a Monday, Wednesday or Saturday it's our turn to drive the Anglo/French aircraft carrier too, so we should be wrapped up well before tea.  

[drat01]

 

 

 

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

 

 

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever.

 

I know you are joking Mart but has there ever been anyone who said that? I remember Tony once stating he would rather be dead than vote Red and I know that from your Tax avoidance non UK residence you favour the Tory party :-)

 

Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me.

 

It's certainly saddening and depressing when you see people on FB for example peddling some of the crap from "groups" like that Britain First and the like and then believing it to be real, when a quick google search shows it to be typically right wing racist bile.

[thetrees]

How many Polish-born people have settled in the UK in the last 10 years, half a million or so?  Has that had an effect on the country in terms of unemployment, wages and public services etc?  Makeminvilla makes some good points.  Because people are afraid to discuss those sorts of questions, UKIP are filling the information void, very successfully.  And whether that migration has had a positive effect, or a negative effect, it happened without the people of the UK having much of a say in it.  That's also where they're making capital.

I visit Poland regularly, and most people that I speak to think that there are some 5m out of the country, with around 800k in the UK.

Without cross-border immigration certain industries in our country would be stuffed, but then that would potentially make the job market more competitive, thus pushing wages up towards the 'living wage' so coveted by some of our left thinkers.

In the end the Blair regime did not think things through on open borders or 'multi-cultural Britain' which is probably why UKIP has better established itself than it could have hoped.

They will disappear though, as we lapse back into the Labour/Tory see-saw.

[thetrees]

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever.

I know you are joking Mart but has there ever been anyone who said that? I remember Tony once stating he would rather be dead than vote Red and I know that from your Tax avoidance non UK residence you favour the Tory party :-)

 

Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me.

 

It's certainly saddening and depressing when you see people on FB for example peddling some of the crap from "groups" like that Britain First and the like and then believing it to be real, when a quick google search shows it to be typically right wing racist bile.

Interesting Ian, as I encountered one of those Red Labour FB thingys that was basically trying to discredit and misrepresent UKIP. This was being spread by a teacher relative and her mates, all of whom are constant nomads and presently enjoying a tax free existence in Saudi Arabia. When asked whether they would like to submit a fair proportion of their income to HMRC, they all went very quiet.

Not very social for socialists, I thought

[lapal_fan]

 

 

Political voting has become all too 'Pop Idol'. How on earth can we elect our government based on the parties' leaders' appearance, or whether they 'seem like a good bloke'?  

 

What percentage of voters have the faintest idea what the various parties' actual policies are, and what they mean in relation to their own lives? 

 

I'm starting to think that there should be an educational qualification for voting. 

 

This is the thought you dare not say out loud, even in a democracy, should there be some basic test of competence to place a vote.

 

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

 

Here's another thought experiment for you: 

 

You know those websites that ask you a bunch of questions, and based on your answers tell you which party you are most closely aligned with? 

 

How about we use those for voting. You don't choose a party or an individual candidate, instead you answer (say) thirty questions on various issues, and it allocates your vote for you. 

 

People might be a bit surprised that the party that really suits their views isn't the one they thought it was. 

 

 

I just did the political scale questionaaire and I am similar to Ghandi and Delhi Lama - Or the Green Party in this countries political terms...

 

I must order some flip flops it seems..

[chrisp65]

never eat Dehli Lama, it could be horse

[lapal_fan]

do'h!

 

Dalai*

[Risso]

 

 

It's certainly saddening and depressing when you see people on FB for example peddling some of the crap from "groups" like that Britain First and the like and then believing it to be real, when a quick google search shows it to be typically right wing racist bile.

 

 

I couldn't agree more, but I could start a whole new topic on political Facebook bollocks.  People believe what they want to, whether it's morons believing that their council has banned them from wearing England shirts, or morons who believe that Michael Gove really did ban To Kill a Mockingbird.  Both are as bad and as moronic as each other.

[drat01]

 

 

 

To have people on this forum, capable of operating a modern piece of i.t. kit and capable of writing a passable message in written english yet still saying they wouldn't vote Labour because regardless of policies the leader looks like a wally in selected photos......well it's grim.

 

To be fair, it's not as grim as people saying that they WOULD vote for Labour for any reason whatsoever.

I know you are joking Mart but has there ever been anyone who said that? I remember Tony once stating he would rather be dead than vote Red and I know that from your Tax avoidance non UK residence you favour the Tory party :-)

 

Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me.

 

It's certainly saddening and depressing when you see people on FB for example peddling some of the crap from "groups" like that Britain First and the like and then believing it to be real, when a quick google search shows it to be typically right wing racist bile.

Interesting Ian, as I encountered one of those Red Labour FB thingys that was basically trying to discredit and misrepresent UKIP. This was being spread by a teacher relative and her mates, all of whom are constant nomads and presently enjoying a tax free existence in Saudi Arabia. When asked whether they would like to submit a fair proportion of their income to HMRC, they all went very quiet.

Not very social for socialists, I thought

 

I think UKIP do a fine job of discrediting themselves without the need for any opposition to them doing so - and really do we need the stupidity of labels like Red this etc? - the whole Red Ed thing is such a nonsense and adds nothing to any debate or setting of credibility.  How did you know they were Socialist's by the way? Being a socialist can mean many things to many people most of them different much in the same was as I could label a few Fascists etc. (Edit: before anyone comments about my use of Gideon - despite it was his given name I have it on very good authority that some in the Gvmt departments call him that also to wind him up :-) )

 

Facebook as a political tool and to a lesser degree the other social media outlets due to them limiting the content, is now becoming a very dangerous thing.

Edited May 27, 2014 by drat01

[Risso]

 

Facebook as a political tool and to a lesser degree the other social media outlets due to them limiting the content, is now becoming a very dangerous thing.

 

 

Absolutely, and it's depressing.  From people regurgitating baseless "facts" about one party or another, to the hilariously bad attempts by all parties to try and use Twitter.  When George Orwell wrote 1984, the made up facts and stats he foresaw, and the screens where everybody could see every detail of your movements was clearly Facebook, except we do it out of choice.

[drat01]

 

 

Facebook as a political tool and to a lesser degree the other social media outlets due to them limiting the content, is now becoming a very dangerous thing.

 

 

Absolutely, and it's depressing.  From people regurgitating baseless "facts" about one party or another, to the hilariously bad attempts by all parties to try and use Twitter.  When George Orwell wrote 1984, the made up facts and stats he foresaw, and the screens where everybody could see every detail of your movements was clearly Facebook, except we do it out of choice.

 

 

I have been known in the past while passing the many hours in hotel rooms avoiding the bar and other distractions to have a look at the people who subscribe to the pages and the comments they make.

 

"It's disgusting aint it Trace"

"send 'em all home"

"they would not let us do it in their country"

"can anyone help me on candy crush ......"

 

It's a shame that more is not made of accountability I suppose especially on those who publish things which are clearly borne out of hatred and malice rather than just blind stupidity

[blandy]

 

Surely the whole point being raised is evaluating what the political parties are claiming to stand for, what chance of them delivering on those policies that you agree with etc. I know I certainly look at what they all claim they will do and have yet to find any time that Labour did not tick most of the boxes for me and what concerns me.

 

The problem with this  is that it's wrong. Nice, but wrong.

Why? Firstly because whole swathes of the country are safe seats. It essentially doesn't matter who I vote for, where I live a tory will get in. My only hope is to vote tactically, in an anti tory way. Suppose Labour was to be the closest to my ideas (it isn't, but bear with me), if the only half chance of beating the tory was to vote (say) LibDem, then that's what I'd do. This is the case in many many constituencies. People who don't want the incumbent party have to bite their lips and vote for the one most likely to defeat them, not necessarily their favourite.

 

And Mike's idea sounds great, except it's removing the person standing from the choice, and just going with a party.

Again, where I live, the MP got himself in all kinds of scandal with allegations of drugs and a male, er, companion from Brazil. Now many of the locals here might decide they don't want an allegedly, er, unstable person with an alleged liking for Bolivian marching Powder and male "friends" to whom he may have given, co-incidentally, sums of money in exchange for special hugs. They're quite traditional like that round here. So they wouldn't be able to get rid of him

 

Or if I liked 8/10 Labour policies, but absolutely loathed 2 of them, but was OK with 5 Conservative ones, but less keen on 4 and din't like 1, my vote would be for Labour, but actually the 2 policies I hated would stop me voting for them, ever.

 

I know it wasn't a totally serious suggestion, and I like the notion at first glance, but actually it's rubbish

[blandy]

When George Orwell wrote 1984, the made up facts and stats he foresaw, and the screens where everybody could see every detail of your movements was clearly Facebook, except we do it out of choice.

 

I did tell you that, in the pub in Manchester. Serves you right

[Risso]

 

When George Orwell wrote 1984, the made up facts and stats he foresaw, and the screens where everybody could see every detail of your movements was clearly Facebook, except we do it out of choice.

 

I did tell you that, in the pub in Manchester. Serves you right

 

 

Yes you did

[mjmooney]

 

And Mike's idea sounds great, except it's removing the person standing from the choice, and just going with a party.

 

I know it wasn't a totally serious suggestion, and I like the notion at first glance, but actually it's rubbish

 

I know it is, but (as you spotted) I just threw it out there as a debating point. 

 

There's also the tension between the local, the national and the global. 

 

Do I want an MP who will work primarily for his constituents, or one who will obey the party whip on national/international issues, even if this is not in his local constituency's interests? 

 

And what use is it (say) electing a broadly left-wing local council, if their budgets are largely controlled by a broadly right-wing central government? Or vice-versa. 

 

And would we rather have a FPTP system, where you tend to get a clear majority of one party, and a 'you know where you stand' consistency of policy, or a PR system, with an endless succession of hamstrung coalitions, and where a wider range of the electorate's views get some representation, even if some of those are extremist types (of either stripe)? 

 

Discuss. 

Edited May 27, 2014 by mjmooney