Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

I'd say the way it works is you aren't electing someone to represent your views, you're electing for them because they represent your views. It's a key difference in what comes prior.

Or to phrase it another way, you're voting for them because you think their views are the best option. Ideally the views of each politician should be relatively stable, it's the electorate that should be changing. The politician shouldn't be convincing you on the campaign that they already represent your views/philosophy/ideology but instead arguing what theirs are and why their views are the best option. So basically, convincing you to follow their views, rather than adapting theirs to be yours.

Of course, this requires a diverse selection of candidates pushing against each other in the argument. Hence, we need to yeet First Past The Post.

[EuchreJack]

If you can't even get rid of the Conservative party, how exactly are you going to get rid of First Past the Post?

Or: How do you outvote First Past the Post in a First Past the Post election?

[hector13]

If you can't even get rid of the Conservative party, how exactly are you going to get rid of First Past the Post?

Or: How do you outvote First Past the Post in a First Past the Post election?

There was a referendum (I think?) on an Alternative Vote system as part of the Lib Dems conditions of being part of a coalition with the Tories after the 2010 election that failed.

Then again, considering how poorly the Lib Dems came out of that coalition it probably speaks more to their incompetence than the Brit’s desire to keep FttP.

[Starver]

2011. And it was a referendum that the government had no position on, given that the Con/Lib partners in the government were diametrically opposed. (Though as arguably many voted Leave to spite the Cameron-governmnent's official position to Remain, it's not exactly simple to match the result with such clear alignment of position.)

There was also much fuss by the more vehemently anti-FPTP crowd about AV being non-optimal, compared with STV or other more-proportional voting methods, which may have soured the resulting desire for change. I don't think you can reliably quantify the degrees of any of this, though. There just weren't enough proper "flip the system" messages being sent around, which have since become a standard feature of campaigning for elections/etc in the decade since.

[Loud Whispers]

Of course, this requires a diverse selection of candidates pushing against each other in the argument. Hence, we need to yeet First Past The Post.

Still can't believe we had a chance to reform it in 2011 but it failed ;-;

[Lidku]

Anyone find it weird that there have been a lot of strikes in the UK recently, but I've barely heard about any of them at all on in news (sarcasm)? Really strange..

[EuchreJack]

Your press ain't Free.
Although the American Press also avoids such reporting whenever possible. When was the last time you heard of the Writers Strike? Oh, when the Actors decided they were going to strike.

[Criptfeind]

"The mainstream media isn't covering this major new piece, as proven by the fact that there hasn't been an article on it for at least 20 minutes" is the weirdest take I've seen all week.

[Starver]

Yeah, tends to be pretty much front-of-the-bulletin whenever there is(/will be tomorrow) a major strike-like action from nurses, doctors, train-drivers, teachers, postmen, driving examiners or even reporters.

The official government line today, by the way is: "Ok, tell you what, you can all have a raise[1], now shut up and don't strike because we still won't discuss it with you." Yeah, right. Some unions are suggesting their members accept it, but not sure how many will vote that way when asked.

[1] 5-7%ish, depending upon sector. Never mind that beyond the paypackets of those public sectors (which have already heen trailing practical cost of living increases for years) everything is already 8%+ more expensive, on average. I'm not involved in this issue, directoy, but I'm not entirely enthused on their behalf.

[Lidku]

Your press ain't Free.

Um, I'm not Br'tish. I'm American. 

[Starver]

Your press ain't Free.

Um, I'm not Br'tish. I'm American. 

At least as right as he would have been had you been British, then...

(With open apologies for bombarding EJ with that latest PM of mine, from the China thread, that I sent trying to describe the broadcast[1] news ecosystem in the UK, with particular (but not sole) reference to the BBC. And not really delving into Broadsheets/Tabloids (was sooo tempted to link to Yes Prime Minister's take on that, but I never gave myself the chance). Of course, I'm comparatively ignorant about US media. Though I get the gist, I think. It's probably mostly oligarchical string-pulling (not sure how NPR works, but the rest seem to be ultimately funded by those with financial interests, maybe indirectly on behalf of/allying with the political ones) whereas the traditional broadcasters over here tend to be swayed neither by ministers nor money. Possibly more swayed against them, really.)

[Great Order]

Lads, we've got a new conspiracy theory:

The economy wasn't fucked by Truss, that was just coincidence. The pensions over-leveraged government bonds and nobody wanted to buy them for... reasons, and the Tories used that to oust Truss.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and if anyone remembers the "Ree kids are identifying as cats" thing, the school was given a glowing review by OFSTED

[Loud Whispers]

Probably just more shite being peddled because the government wants to force pension funds to sell to larger pension funds or buy into startup stocks. The gov's taken the position that less competition is good for a market, same as they did to the legal, insurance, finance and accounting firms, so as far as they're concerned pension funds should behave like hedge funds - throwing around loadsa money to boost them stonks. Of course this logic does not stand up to two seconds of thought. A pension fund is for building peoples' pensions. It should be up to people to choose if they want a riskier pension fund that could collapse and leave them without a retirement, or a pension fund that would have modest ROI but less likelihood of failure.

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has been urged by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) not to force retirement schemes to invest in riskier and complex assets, according to The Times.       

It’s said the chancellor’s preference would be for Britain’s “highly fragmented” pensions market — which the report states has roughly 28,000 defined contribution schemes — to be consolidated so as to boost investment in UK companies.

Last year, up to 35 million savers had access to the PLSA’s Retirement Living Standards through their pension scheme’s communications. In total, 124 organisations were using the Standards, including over 100 pensions schemes.

Hunt is expected to give more details in his annual Mansion House speech to City of London grandees in July, the report said.

He has also “left open the idea of ‘mandating’ pension funds to make certain investments if he cannot achieve the kind of consolidation in the industry he is seeking”.

Nigel Peaple, director of policy and research with the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, told The Times:

    “Trustees are adamant that their role is to look after the savings of their members.

    Trustees are open minded about what we can do collectively to help the UK economy but it is essential that this operates in the interests of savers.”

In the same article, Hunt said, speaking on a visit to Washington, that “Australia and Canada have found a way of making sure they get better returns by consolidating their pension fund industry in a way that makes it easier for them to invest in unlisted and potentially higher-growth vehicles”.

It is criminal that such an economically illiterate party gets to market itself as the pro-business party and the public believes it -_-

Also don't get the whole "I identify as a cat" drama. When I was a kid half the people in my class identified as a giraffe, a lion or whatever. I went from snake to spider, the only lasting effect it had on me was a strong desire to live in a cave like a trapdoor spider. NO VISITORS ALLOWED UNLESS YOU'RE EDIBLE

[hector13]

So much for laissez-faire, eh.

[Great Order]

Also don't get the whole "I identify as a cat" drama. When I was a kid half the people in my class identified as a giraffe, a lion or whatever. I went from snake to spider, the only lasting effect it had on me was a strong desire to live in a cave like a trapdoor spider. NO VISITORS ALLOWED UNLESS YOU'RE EDIBLE

Ah, but you see nowadays the trann- err... "trans people" (Who, let's face it, are actually just mentally ill and/or attention seekers despite what the scientists say because they just want job security so they make stuff up) exist and want to indoctrinate and rape our kids, so we have to make mountains out of molehills, even if the molehills don't exist, to preserve the future of Western Civilisation^TM