Do you want to discuss boring politics? (235 Viewers)

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
It might not be the most popular view, but I really like our electoral system (FPTP). It produces disproportionate winners and losers, but it mostly allows for strong governance. You have the odd decade where parliament is weak (1970s and 2010s).

To take 2019 as an example, you’ve had the stress of Brexit on the electorate and parliamentary deadlock with no end in sight. The strong Tory majority allowed the country to finally see Brexit through and alleviate what was becoming a toxic political environment. That’s the beauty of majoritarian electoral systems.

On the continent, proportional representative systems lead to more fragmented political systems, and that’s not a good thing. Frankly, would we want the political system of Germany, Spain, Portugal and Italy? Germany has had a grand coalition for most of the 2010s because neither major party had a coalition partner it found acceptable.

I’m not a Tory, nor a Brexiteer.

FPTP is fine, as long as it isn't the only way we have democratically elected parliament. We need a PR style upper house as well to oversee this rather than a heriditary system or one whereby the party in govt can elect new people to the upper chamber to gain control.

For me the benefit of FPTP is not necessarily strong govt but the election of a representative of a particular area in a constituency. Other systems can result in people not get the person/party most people actually want.

IMO on the larger scale it's our version of the electoral college, leading to skewed overall results. Plus a party that has control for a significant of time can also abuse their power. Gerry-mandering of boundaries to maximise your elected officials rather than represent the voters. Just this week in the Queen's Speech we've seen quite a few things that would consolidate power for the ruling party - voter ID for a non-existent problem that would only disenfranchise those less likely to vote for them. PM deciding when to hold an election so can pick and choose a time when they seem popular (like a footballer looking for a new contract in the middle of a purple patch). There were also parts about adding in further restrictions for protests and judicial reform. Plus in recent years the threat over the BBC funding that has resulted in far less scrutiny and criticism of the decisions or actions of the Tories plus the installation of a DG who is very much a follower of Tory ideals.

So basically, more power to govt, harder to vote for those who are less likely to vote for them, less opportunity to report or protest their actions or to take them to court. This is what 'strong governance' gets you in the end - autocracy and a shift towards extremes.
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
But that’s the point. There’s been a couple of high profile “deplatofrming” incidents, and this wouldn’t have stopped them. Meanwhile the government are deplatforming anyone with views they don’t like in academia.

It’s total virtue signalling. Will do nothing to address the problem and they clearly don’t care about it anyway. Absolute dictionary definition.

 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
But that's just it, you don't book in the first place, then!

The cancellations have been done thanks to popular protest, and I don't agree with that as such - go along and get a free heckle - but all that'll happen is there'll be no risk taken in who they book.

It'll be even more lefty!

I agree with the rest btw.

Isn't that how cancel culture works though? You start with protesting these speakers until such point as venues don't even bother to book them because of the hassle they'll get around it. Thus they are eventually silenced, or 'cancelled'.

What is a 'popular protest'? Does a few hundred, or even thousand, people screaming very loudly about something make them 'popular'? Or just noisy?

For me I'd rather let anyone say what they want and if you disagree go along and tear their argument apart. Make them look silly. Plus anyone who is taken in by such extremist views will be out in the open where you can keep an eye on them, rather than skulking around in the shadows saying 'they won't let me speak because I tell it like it is' without proper scrutiny. Give them enough rope and they eventually hang themselves with it.
 
D

Deleted member 11652

Guest
Says the bloke who thinks Voter ID cards are necessary... because of 6 cases of voter fraud out of 30 odd million votes

Course you don’t agree with voter ID. It would guarantee a Tory government for the next 25 years
 

SkyBlueDom26

Well-Known Member
Course you don’t agree with voter ID. It would guarantee a Tory government for the next 25 years
[/QUOTE]
Will be for the next 100 years hopefully
 
D

Deleted member 11652

Guest
So you think preventing millions of people voting is democratic?

Of course you do. Why am I not surprised.

Tbf it’s impossible to get an ID card. They only give you one if you’re gonna vote Tory don’t they
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Tbf it’s impossible to get an ID card. They only give you one if you’re gonna vote Tory don’t they

There were 6 cases of voter fraud in the last election. 6.

And if it's as easy to get ID as you're making out, why do you think it guarantees a Tory win?
 
D

Deleted member 11652

Guest
There were 6 cases of voter fraud in the last election. 6.

And if it's as easy to get ID as you're making out, why do you think it guarantees a Tory win?

Well they only way they’ll lose is through fraud.
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Well they only way they’ll lose is through fraud.

Your argument makes zero sense.

If it's so open to fraud now why were there only 6 cases in the last election?
If it's so open to fraud now does that mean the Tories have been winning fraudulently?
If it's so easy to win fraudulently why haven't Labour, or any other party, tried it?
How does stopping millions of people voting, a lot of whom would likely vote Labour, make Labour more likely to win?

You're as clueless as your pal Dom.
 
D

Deleted member 11652

Guest
Your argument makes zero sense.

If it's so open to fraud now why were there only 6 cases in the last election?
If it's so open to fraud now does that mean the Tories have been winning fraudulently?
If it's so easy to win fraudulently why haven't Labour, or any other party, tried it?
How does stopping millions of people voting, a lot of whom would likely vote Labour, make Labour more likely to win?

You're as clueless as your pal Dom.

I’m not saying there has been fraud but voter id prevents it in the future and fraud is the only way the Tories will lose in your lifetime.
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
The silent Majority on the forum

Seen as your having a love in with its a batch do you agree with the original Traditional britain group he linked who want to deport all non whites?
And if 6oure bothered about the comments by beckett why didn't you speak up about that?
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
I’m not saying there has been fraud but voter id prevents it in the future and fraud is the only way the Tories will lose in your lifetime.

You think the Conservatives will win 15 odd elections in a row?


giphy.gif
 

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
I’m not saying there has been fraud but voter id prevents it in the future and fraud is the only way the Tories will lose in your lifetime.

Let's set up a UK task force to prevent bear attacks, there haven't been any but if it prevents them in the future...........
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
I still want to know if this means people are now all for a national ID card!
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
I’m not saying there has been fraud but voter id prevents it in the future and fraud is the only way the Tories will lose in your lifetime.

Which would be fine if it wasn't going to cost billions to implement and reducing the likelihood of people bothering to vote. A democracy should be encouraging voting, not putting in measures to put people off.

Perhaps we should start legislation now to prevent people with jetpacks from travelling below a certain height so as to not be a danger to pedestrians, or to cause damage to properties? I know it's not a problem now but it prevents it in the future, however unlikely it is to happen at all.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top