Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 12:44:21 GMT
Thanks for posting, an interesting historical analysis People can argue whether the historical national conservative agenda is good or not, but what is clear from what the author says is that ths current incarnation is not the same "Even this week, when I asked one Conservative MP who attended NatCon if he could define the essence of conservatism, he replied: “Trust the people." The most glaring problem with the national conservatism on display this week is that it’s not entirely clear it still does... The problem is that, beyond this analysis, what does British national conservatism amount to? Listening to this week’s speeches, it all feels so inchoate and, ironically, alien from the people" Yes -I agree with his opinion of this week's speeches. I like his attempt to explain what Nat Conservatism is by posing a suggested obverse-Liberal Internationalism. That certainly allows me to characterise something about which I have a number of increasing concerns. I have always believed in his "The People" as political arbiter. And my hope and belief is always that they look for a sensible balance-aka The Centre Ground. So I have no problem with LOC or ROC constantly trying to reconcile their deep beliefs with a voting population which occupies the centre. Both main UK Parties drift away from it from time to time in a belief that the wilder shores of their philosophy will appeal. Labour did it in opposition ( the usual place for it) , and Starmer is feeling his way back on the way ( and as the way) to government. The Tories seem to be flirting with their wilder shores whilst in Government ( though NatCon is not a branch of the Government ). A sign , I think, that the Party is preparing for opposition ! |
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 17, 2023 12:46:30 GMT
I was largely unaware of David Starkey until 2011 when he commented on the riots www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-blackAs I understood him, he was suggesting that rioting was a result of black culture which had introduced it into his Sceptred isle. I come from Northern Ireland, where there is a strong tradition of rioting (we even have a rioting season) which we are proud of. We didn't need foreigners to teach us how to riot. This made me come to the conclusion that Starkey was an idiot with a poor knowledge of history. |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 17, 2023 12:47:48 GMT
I was largely unaware of David Starkey until 2011 when he commented on the riots www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-blackAs I understood him, he was suggesting that rioting was a result of black culture which had introduced it into his Sceptred isle. I come from Northern Ireland, where there is a strong tradition of rioting (we even have a rioting season) which we are proud of. We didn't need foreigners to teach us how to riot. This made me come to the conclusion that Starkey was an idiot with a poor knowledge of history. He could have looked just over the channel where there is a long tradition of street violence to achieve political change going back to the revolution. The 2011 riots themselves were however a strange, opportunistic, unfocussed, viral phenomenon. The fuel that drove them must in recent years have become even more potent if anything and I imagine they could easily kick off again at any time given a trigger event. Starkey to me is a comedic character who looks and sounds as though he should be in the comedy show 'The League of Gentleman'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 13:05:56 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by Danny on May 17, 2023 13:12:15 GMT
Labour would build on the Green Belt: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65619675Living as I do on the north-western outskirts of London, I am very conscious of how the introduction of Green Belts brought to a halt the unsightly ribbon development that so characterised the 1930s. Do you mean 'towns'? because ribbon development I think means building along roads. Thats exactly what you do in towns, but without the added countryside bonus in between those roads. Is that really a worse option, to utterly pave off everything, rather than intersperse homes within the countryside? Today's news is about soaring rents for homes, which is fundamentally because of the shortage of property pushing up prices. We need many more homes for the people we already have, never mind that we are inviting in many more. So, do you intend to allow rents to continue to explode, or do you intend to allow much more home construction? If you allow more building there are four options really. 1) Squeeze people in more densely in existing urban areas. Generally reducing their amenities by shrinking the amount of space everyone has. How is that acceptable when we have loads of space and are a fundamentally rich society well able to afford more homes? 2)allow cities and towns to spread outwards building more of the same. This reuqires you gobble up green belt, which was originally defined as the town limit. 3) Build brand new towns in virgin countryside. 4) Allow development where some of the infrastructure already exists, such as along exisitng roads. Ribbon development. In essence, create new villages rather than new towns. Pick the one you prefer! (But bear in mind even in the SE of England most land is farmed, ie not natural wild but wholly redeveloped already by man, but largely green covered. We could double our urban area, and thus double the total of houses and not really notice the loss of the land. Although doubling the population would make our occupation of these islands even more unsutainable in terms of growing our own food, but that ship sailed more than 100 years ago. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on May 17, 2023 13:16:53 GMT
I am not sure if I remember correctly, but didn't the construction of the Aswan Dam lead to war? In any event in areas of the world where water is in short supply (an increasingly greater proportion will result from global warming) I can see that it could well become amongst the most important political issues! |
|
|
|
Post by pete on May 17, 2023 13:37:27 GMT
Are you against International law and human rights? |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
Member is Online
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 17, 2023 13:43:13 GMT
More from the NatC rally:
"The Christian nature and origins of the British people are inescapable. Britain is a Christian nation--or it is nothing at all." - JS Milbank at #NatCon's panel "God & Country"
Interesting news for the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Mayor of London, Leaders of the SNP and Scottish Labour, etc. and that's before we get to all the atheists and agnostics.
|
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on May 17, 2023 13:48:17 GMT
More from the NatC rally: "The Christian nature and origins of the British people are inescapable. Britain is a Christian nation--or it is nothing at all." - JS Milbank at #NatCon's panel "God & Country" Interesting news for the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Mayor of London, Leaders of the SNP and Scottish Labour, etc. and that's before we get to all the atheists and agnostics. Elizabeth I : "I would not open windows into men's souls" |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2023 14:11:40 GMT
I tried being feckless but I found it too hard on the knees, was I doing it wrong?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2023 14:14:12 GMT
Elizabeth I : "I would not open windows into men's souls"
Harold II : " What arrow"
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2023 14:16:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 17, 2023 14:16:50 GMT
I was largely unaware of David Starkey until 2011 when he commented on the riots www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-blackAs I understood him, he was suggesting that rioting was a result of black culture which had introduced it into his Sceptred isle. I come from Northern Ireland, where there is a strong tradition of rioting (we even have a rioting season) which we are proud of. We didn't need foreigners to teach us how to riot. This made me come to the conclusion that Starkey was an idiot with a poor knowledge of history. He could have looked just over the channel where there is a long tradition of street violence to achieve political change going back to the revolution. The 2011 riots themselves were however a strange, opportunistic, unfocussed, viral phenomenon. The fuel that drove them must in recent years have become even more potent if anything and I imagine they could easily kick off again at any time given a trigger event. Starkey to me is a comedic character who looks and sounds as though he should be in the comedy show 'The League of Gentleman'. , its just one of those exceptionalist myths that many people hold about this country (as people from other countries hold about themselves as well). Many, particularly those on the centre-right (but not exclusively), view the 'people'/'electorate'/'country' as predominantly moderate in favour of gradual change where necessary. All very rational and essentially conservative (with a small c), and that this is somehow a quintessentially 'English/British' trait that sets us apart from other nations. You can trace this line of thought back to Burke and the period of the Napoleonic wars.
It really doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and can easily be dismissed by reference to the historical record and social/political sciences. The basis of political stability has much more to do with economic well-being rather than any ideological belief or preference. If you gave people the choice between supporting a democracy and getting 300 calories a day or 2500 for a communist or fascist regime, most would go with the latter. When a group in society start to feel that their economic well-being/opportunities/share of wealth is threatened, that tends to breed political radicalisation. In recent times, the negative impacts of globalisation, austerity, disparities in wealth between generations, have all been major contributors to increased political polarisation over the past 20 years, and growing support for political extremes.
If you study political/religious terrorist groups, from Narodnaya Volya in Russia to Al-Qaeda, you find they recruit heavily from students populations during periods when economic opportunities are restricted.
The UK was far from politically stable in the first half of the C19, with economic dislocation causing widespread unrest and growth in radical movements. It was post 1850 when Britain can be seen to enter its relatively long period of political stability, and the economic benefits of industrialisation started to become felt (although the wc had to continue to fight and agitate for a fairer share). The 'militancy' of elements of the Trade Unionist movement in the '70's was primarily aimed at securing economic gains in a period of high inflation. Many of those 'militant' workers, went on to buy their council houses and vote for Thatcher in the '80s.
I also tend to agree with Dominic Cummings, in that the notion that there are a majority of 'moderate' voters out there who hold middle of the road views on the majority of issues is fundamentally flawed. On specific issues for which an individual genuinely cares about (and is likely to be a determinant of VI), there is more a tendency to gravitate to one of the poles. Cummings/Johnson exploited this in their electoral strategy in 2019, to identify how to target certain groups of voters and policy offerings. Essentially the 'average voter' doesn't really exist. In regards to economic policy, the greater the stress an individual feels on their economic well-bring/opportunities, the more likely they are to support radical/extreme options. Currently, for many voters, the economic threat is not so great as to seek fundamental change, but sufficient to support and accept a change in ruling party. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 17, 2023 14:29:22 GMT
domjg (and eotw) - "He could have looked just over the channel where there is a long tradition of street violence to achieve political change going back to the revolution." If Starkey really did claim riots were something brought in with immigrants, he really is an ass, and a very poor historian. Here are some illustrative links, garnered from 30 seconds googling. journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00380385211058027blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/london-riot-history/ (this one looks at the Gordon Riots of 1780, among others). But is goes way back - www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/newport-rising/1839-newp-ris/riot-act-1714/If parliament passed the Riot Act in 1714, it's probably safe to assume there was a problem back then. In fact, Britain has a proud history of rioting, and - arguably - it's our habit of periodic civil disturbance in times of distress, not completely suppressed but falling short of revolution, that has ensured we have secured sufficient periodic reform to retain the monarchial system and not have gone full republic, like most other western countries. The British armed forces were also famous for their boorish, uncouth and riotous manner. It was one of the reasons they were so effective. Indeed, I'd say much of our history stems from the fact that we used to like a good old riot. We're far too accommodating now, and governments get away with anything, so meek is the British public these days.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 14:39:11 GMT
pjw1961“ Starkey is of course a distinguished professional historian - specialising in the Tudors - but also a prize t**t in most other respects. (Edit - having said that, in some ways he is an odd fit with the NatCons. As he is both an atheist and gay, half the delegates would likely have him burnt at the stake or something). ” Nice to hear that some good may come from it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on May 17, 2023 14:45:46 GMT
Steve ''Purple Bricks sold for less than the cost of a brick!''
Perhaps Mayor Houchen brokered the deal?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 14:46:14 GMT
Are you against International law and human rights? Don't be ridiculous. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 14:46:53 GMT
More from the NatC rally: "The Christian nature and origins of the British people are inescapable. Britain is a Christian nation--or it is nothing at all." - JS Milbank at #NatCon's panel "God & Country" Interesting news for the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Mayor of London, Leaders of the SNP and Scottish Labour, etc. and that's before we get to all the atheists and agnostics. Like the monarchy, christianity is destined to continue to decline until - probably not for a very long time but the graph lines don’t lie - neither exist in the UK. As an aside, I wonder if a “monarch” (what a weird, invented title for a human being) has the the right or power to request a new “national” anthem?There is nothing National at all in a song banging on about a particular man or woman and being “victorious.” Just get a decent composer to compose a decent tune. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 14:48:45 GMT
Are you against International law and human rights? Don't be ridiculous. It was you who referred to it as “calm and interesting.” I found it interesting in a way - but not calm. |
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on May 17, 2023 14:48:53 GMT
Monarch, from the ancient greek Mono (one) Archon (ruler), says it all really!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 14:57:01 GMT
Angela Rayner to Oliver Dowden at pmq’s today, discussing the loony conference:
“ The Tories have picked their side, there for the vested interests, for oil companies and the bankers, for those that are profiting from the crisis and not suffering from it. Whether it’s failing the millions of people anxiously waiting for treatment or overseeing a rise in child poverty, and while his colleagues spout nonsense at their carnival of conspiracy, I want to know when will his party stop blaming everybody else and realise that the problem is them?”
|
|
|
|
Post by pete on May 17, 2023 15:04:25 GMT
Are you against International law and human rights? Don't be ridiculous. What's ridiculous about the question? You're a conservative, they're conservatives. You put it on here for some sort of reason? This is the part I found interesting and says all you need to know about nazi-con 'According to its leading exponents, national conservatism is simply the opposite of liberal internationalism. It believes nations are distinctive and should seek to protect this distinctiveness instead of pursuing universal ideas such as global free trade, human rights, international law and the like' |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 15:19:02 GMT
What's ridiculous about the question? You're a conservative, they're conservatives. You put it on here for some sort of reason? This is the part I found interesting and says all you need to know about nazi-con 'According to its leading exponents, national conservatism is simply the opposite of liberal internationalism. It believes nations are distinctive and should seek to protect this distinctiveness instead of pursuing universal ideas such as global free trade, human rights, international law and the like' You know nothing about me. Don't make assumptions based on your own prejudices. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2023 15:29:46 GMT
What's ridiculous about the question? You're a conservative, they're conservatives. You put it on here for some sort of reason? This is the part I found interesting and says all you need to know about nazi-con 'According to its leading exponents, national conservatism is simply the opposite of liberal internationalism. It believes nations are distinctive and should seek to protect this distinctiveness instead of pursuing universal ideas such as global free trade, human rights, international law and the like' You know nothing about me. Don't make assumptions based on your own prejudices. LOL  |
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on May 17, 2023 15:40:19 GMT
He could have looked just over the channel where there is a long tradition of street violence to achieve political change going back to the revolution. The 2011 riots themselves were however a strange, opportunistic, unfocussed, viral phenomenon. The fuel that drove them must in recent years have become even more potent if anything and I imagine they could easily kick off again at any time given a trigger event. Starkey to me is a comedic character who looks and sounds as though he should be in the comedy show 'The League of Gentleman'. , its just one of those exceptionalist myths that many people hold about this country (as people from other countries hold about themselves as well). Many, particularly those on the centre-right (but not exclusively), view the 'people'/'electorate'/'country' as predominantly moderate in favour of gradual change where necessary. All very rational and essentially conservative (with a small c), and that this is somehow a quintessentially 'English/British' trait that sets us apart from other nations. You can trace this line of thought back to Burke and the period of the Napoleonic wars.
It really doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and can easily be dismissed by reference to the historical record and social/political sciences. The basis of political stability has much more to do with economic well-being rather than any ideological belief or preference. If you gave people the choice between supporting a democracy and getting 300 calories a day or 2500 for a communist or fascist regime, most would go with the latter. When a group in society start to feel that their economic well-being/opportunities/share of wealth is threatened, that tends to breed political radicalisation. In recent times, the negative impacts of globalisation, austerity, disparities in wealth between generations, have all been major contributors to increased political polarisation over the past 20 years, and growing support for political extremes.
If you study political/religious terrorist groups, from Narodnaya Volya in Russia to Al-Qaeda, you find they recruit heavily from students populations during periods when economic opportunities are restricted.
The UK was far from politically stable in the first half of the C19, with economic dislocation causing widespread unrest and growth in radical movements. It was post 1850 when Britain can be seen to enter its relatively long period of political stability, and the economic benefits of industrialisation started to become felt (although the wc had to continue to fight and agitate for a fairer share). The 'militancy' of elements of the Trade Unionist movement in the '70's was primarily aimed at securing economic gains in a period of high inflation. Many of those 'militant' workers, went on to buy their council houses and vote for Thatcher in the '80s.
I also tend to agree with Dominic Cummings, in that the notion that there are a majority of 'moderate' voters out there who hold middle of the road views on the majority of issues is fundamentally flawed. On specific issues for which an individual genuinely cares about (and is likely to be a determinant of VI), there is more a tendency to gravitate to one of the poles. Cummings/Johnson exploited this in their electoral strategy in 2019, to identify how to target certain groups of voters and policy offerings. Essentially the 'average voter' doesn't really exist. In regards to economic policy, the greater the stress an individual feels on their economic well-bring/opportunities, the more likely they are to support radical/extreme options. Currently, for many voters, the economic threat is not so great as to seek fundamental change, but sufficient to support and accept a change in ruling party. Thanks Lulu for the interesting post. One observation I'd make though and hopefully without exhibiting British exceptionalism (which as you probably know I'm not generally keen on!) is that while challenging economic conditions with no apparent hope of reprieve will likely push people to behaviour or support behaviour they might not do in easier times it does seem though that different nations have differing thresholds on taking such action. I'm generally a bit of a francophile and on a general level admire the role France sees for itself in the world, promoting freedom, dignity and reason etc. Nonetheless even I find it hard to understand why so many of them will go bonkers when the retirement age is threatened to be raised by two years to a level still below what we're used to and where ours will likely increase to 68 with barely a murmur from anyone (not that I mind working to 68, longer the better!). One of my problems with this country though is that, as Alec alluded to, the English can be very passive and are very good at not seeing what they don't want to see. The other thing is poverty and lack of hope breeding extremism. Of course that's true but there's also a big element of the secure and moneyed playing at being disruptor and revolutionary which can be seen in the figure of those such as Dan Kruger or, in fact, Cummins himself. Al-Qaeda was also known to be a magnet for rich, bored, frustrated Saudi boys including Mr BL. Even a large segment of support for brexit came from the retired and financially secure, safe in the knowledge that they could commit a 'revolutionary act' without it being likely to come back and bite them in the arse personally. The idle, financially secure, connected, entitled, think they're cleverer than they are of this world can be very dangerous and represent a large part of this new hard right 'conservative' movement I suspect. The world is a sixth form debating club to them. |
|
|
|
Post by befuddledbadger on May 17, 2023 15:56:28 GMT
I had a few pints of Befuddled Badger one time when I was down in Dorset. It definitely made me feckless. A little bit of Hall and Woodhouse's finest, I presume. By the way, I hope you're not using the word feckless here as in the accursed "brewer's droop". (My liking for the word befuddled comes from an old mate of mine who, when asked late in the evening on a night out how he was, often replied "befuddled with drink, I'm afraid". It was his stock phrase. His party pieces, when befuddled, were very good renditions of the Stones "Get Off My Cloud" and Procul Harem's "Whiter Shade of Pale." The waiter regularly brought trays in those days as we skipped the light fandango. Good old Mike, I wonder where he is now? Still befuddled after all these years, I expect, but as merry and happy as he always used to be, I hope.) |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,638
|
Post by steve on May 17, 2023 16:17:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on May 17, 2023 16:35:41 GMT
Thanks Lulu for the interesting post. One observation I'd make though and hopefully without exhibiting British exceptionalism (which as you probably know I'm not generally keen on!) is that while challenging economic conditions with no apparent hope of reprieve will likely push people to behaviour or support behaviour they might not do in easier times it does seem though that different nations have differing thresholds on taking such action. I'm generally a bit of a francophile and on a general level admire the role France sees for itself in the world, promoting freedom, dignity and reason etc. Nonetheless even I find it hard to understand why so many of them will go bonkers when the retirement age is threatened to be raised by two years to a level still below what we're used to and where ours will likely increase to 68 with barely a murmur from anyone (not that I mind working to 68, longer the better!). One of my problems with this country though is that, as Alec alluded to, the English can be very passive and are very good at not seeing what they don't want to see. The other thing is poverty and lack of hope breeding extremism. Of course that's true but there's also a big element of the secure and moneyed playing at being disruptor and revolutionary which can be seen in the figure of those such as Dan Kruger or, in fact, Cummins himself. Al-Qaeda was also known to be a magnet for rich, bored, frustrated Saudi boys including Mr BL. Even a large segment of support for brexit came from the retired and financially secure, safe in the knowledge that they could commit a 'revolutionary act' without it being likely to come back and bite them in the arse personally. The idle, financially secure, connected, entitled, think they're cleverer than they are of this world can be very dangerous and represent a large part of this new hard right 'conservative' movement I suspect. The world is a sixth form debating club to them. , thanks for your response. In regards to Even a large segment of support for brexit came from the retired and financially secure, safe in the knowledge that they could commit a 'revolutionary act' without it being likely to come back and bite them in the arse personally. - those types of voters could take a risk and vote on more ideological grounds, but I doubt many of them thought of themselves as committing a 'revolutionary act' or taking a risk, and they are more often perceived as wanting to turn the clock back to a bygone age that never really was.
I think some people are more ideologically driven, and will go with the 300 calories a day (for many issues I would put myself firmly in that category), but they are in the minority. There also people who will exploit/manipulate situations for personal gain. However, for these two groups of people to get their way, so to speak, you tend to need quite a number of those who are motivated to adopt more radical positions due economic circumstance in order to enable change.
I think the current situation in France is driven by anger that the social contract is being broken. They do have more of a tradition of taking to the streets, particularly in Paris. However, we have large and small scale demonstrations and direct action in this country by a number of different groups (fuel protestors, anti-Brexit, environmental, trade unions) all the time. And from what I know of other countries, English people are really no more or less apathetic than any other nationality. When something really matters to them, like someone trying to build a sewage works near their home, people all over the world tend to protest. |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on May 17, 2023 16:43:29 GMT
It's hugely depressing, especially given you are putting that power into the hands of local councils filled with part time politicians, some of whom will be good and representative, some will be poor quality people making short term political decisions or influenced by who they know. Others will be borderline or literally corrupt.There's always a point where you have to stop and think if you have crossed a red line and Green Belt is one of those things that was created for a reason and has been in place for decades precisely to create a red line even if it already gets nibbled away at. Particularly depressing because it demonstrates human nature for what it is that we are never willing to make even the smallest of sacrifices to protect the planet. The "sacrifice" in this case is not about sacrificing people who can't find a place to live but about controlling population such that there will be enough land available without eating into Green land. Not just politicians; just over a year ago we had a problem with corrupt officers in my local council. www.kilburntimes.co.uk/news/local-council/21917911.four-corrupt-council-workers-allegedly-took-2m-pavement-scam/ |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,361
|
Post by Danny on May 17, 2023 16:45:57 GMT
British conservatism it seems to me is similar, it's been forced to adapt to the modern reality of the nation over time by outside forces while still managing to retain it's identity and many of the privileges of it's constituency. Conservatism is never and has never been about stopping change in it's entirety or forcing it backwards but that seems to be what these Natcons want to attempt. They seem to talk a lot of personal morality and Christian revival (which I guess reflects it's American template) but that is alien to the British Conservative tradition and even Disraeli would have recognised that. The language is of taking us back to a time of religiosity and deference to state/establishment power that has probably not existed in any way in this country for the last hundred years at least. This may be a calm appraisal of the phenomenon, seeking to put it in the wider context of a history of conservatism but if you were parents of a child in a single sex family, a recent (or maybe not so recent) immigrant, would you not feel very alarmed by this talk? As someone whose primary loyalty is (no longer) to this country but who nonetheless believes passionately in western values and would defend them any which way, evem I find myself wondering if some at that conference wouldn't like to see people like me forcibly 're-educated' in some way. The problem is FPP elections. Just the same as in the US. Its a method of choosing a representative which only works if there are two choices. It tends to make the largest minority the winner, and in the Uk thats mean about 1/4 of the population actively supporting the winner. So always 3/4 oppose the government. What happens in the US may not be precisely the same. It seems local candidates in different states can be quite distinct from each other in positioning. So we would have a differently spun conservative party in Kent from Yorkshire. Wouldnt quite work here, the Uk is too small. Also the UK has one unified government, whoever controls the commons wins everything. The US is different and US voters have for a very long time tended to engineer a situation where the parties oppose each other controlling separate arms of government. But here polarisation is getting steadily worse. The relative improvement of the position of libs in recent years shows how desperate voters have become. i dont mean because people might not like their policies, but because of the massive disadvantage the system puts any third party under. By rights greens ought to have some MPs, but its a miracle they got any, which only happened because of essentially a 4 way tie in Brighton. As to con, they realised they were unable to beat labour and needed more votes. At the time UKIP was taking anti EU votes from both main parties, but 2:1 from con rather than lab. Con decided they had no choice but to take on board anti EU and then, as it escalated, leave policies. Even as late as 2019 con were still trying somehow to avoid leaving the EU as much as they could, but eventually this was draining away their vote again, so they voted in Johnson and called an election on hard brexit now. Con adopted the view of maybe 10% of the nation. They knew it would harm the UK. They knew the campaign was a pack of lies. But it got them elected. 10% pushed their view on the 100%. And ultimately thats why we are now governed by some loons. Because to become the government, they had to first be loons. To adopt destructive policies which would harm everyone but appeal to enough people short term to win. The system is destroying itself. |
|
