|
|
Post by graham on Dec 14, 2023 0:04:39 GMT
steve the two of them are pro brexit britnats for whom the UK is the universe. Socialist maybe economically but ideally only for the natives. Internationalism of any kind, especially the European will be anathema to them. They're 'closed' rather than 'open' in the current cultural divide parlance I have never been a Britnat - nor am I a Euronat! I hold views close to those expressed by the likes of Barbara Castle, John Silkin and Peter Shore at the time of the 1975 Referendum. In 2016 I was pretty much 50/50 in my leanings . The economic dishonesty of Cameron and Osborne proved decisive.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 0:32:30 GMT
grahamI take it you were impressed by the economic " honesty" of serial liars Spaffer Johnson, Nigel Farage and Dominic Cummings! There's one born every minute!
|
|
|
|
Post by graham on Dec 14, 2023 0:39:59 GMT
graham I take it you were impressed by the economic " honesty" of serial liars Spaffer Johnson, Nigel Farage and Dominic Cummings! There's one born every minute! Not at all. I considered all of them to be as venal in 2016 as I do today. I took absolutely no account of their views. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 5:36:26 GMT
New flavour crisps  |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 6:22:08 GMT
Should get standards report into tory MP Scott Benton today, really can't see him getting less than 10 days for 'offering to leak confidential information and lobby ministers in return for payments from a group of fake gambling industry investors'
Next week we have the result of Peter Bone's recall petition
What a time to be alive...
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 6:50:21 GMT
If Benton is given a suspension long enough to trigger a recall should be a straight forward pick up for labour .
Benton is an " interesting " character an openly gay married man. Yet firmly opposed to women's control of their own bodies and names the old testament as his favourite book!
Bone's seat of Wellingborough would be a considerable challenge but given Labour did win it in the landslides of 1997 and 2001 might well be in play.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 7:28:36 GMT
In the 2019 General Election, the Conservatives won an MP for every 38,000 votes it received. The Liberal Democrats got 336,000 votes for every MP; while for the Greens, their 866,000 votes won them just a single MP.
This shows our political system is blatantly unequal – some people’s votes count more than others. No wonder so many people today are turned off by politics and don’t see much point in voting. Or turn to populists who exploit their frustrations. So many feel alienated from the political system that decides so much of what goes on in their lives.
And, as bad, minority support results in majority power. In 2019, the Conservatives won 43.6% of votes cast – a clear minority – but took 56% of the seats and formed a ‘majority’ government with total - 100% - power.
The fact that they enjoy minority support is totally ignored by the media who perpetuate the myth of popularity.
The UK’s current voting system is at the core of this: it is unequal and disproportionate and so drives the disillusion, distrust and divisiveness that we see just about everywhere.
And of course this is not new. It’s been this way ever since at least World War II. Liberal Democrats have long argued for a proportional voting system where votes are equal – a fair voting system which will connect ordinary people to decisions which affect them and start to rebuild trust
Disillusion with politics in the UK is widespread, as is distrust in our politicians. In the run up to the 2019 General Election, more than 60 per cent of people surveyed (BBC News March 2020) said they were dissatisfied with the way our politics works. And public opinion suggests that trust has been further eroded since.
When surveyed, only a quarter of people said they thought their vote would influence the election result (BBC website report) . This reflects the fact that, under FPTP, votes are not fair or equal. While every eligible voter has one vote to cast, one person’s vote does not have the same impact on the result as another person’s vote. Most constituencies are “safe seats” – certain to return the same party in election after election. Only ‘swing’ voters in marginal constituencies are targeted by the parties; and so millions of voters are almost entirely ignored.
In a fair voting system, everyone’s vote counts equally and a party’s share of total seats at Westminster is proportional to its share of the votes. But this is not the case under FPTP.
In another survey, a third of respondents also said they would vote tactically (Electoral Reform Society/YouGov) rather than for their actual preferred party or candidate. This highlights the fact that FPTP severely limits voter choice. Voters are not able to express their preferences but have to game the system in attempt to avoid that that they definitely don't want.
Change is Urgently needed.
Our voting system, known as First Past The Post (FPTP) drives this widespread distrust and alienation.
Under FPTP, we have 650 separate constituency elections. Voters cast their vote for one candidate, who is chosen by their party - people can only vote for one option within each political party. The party candidate with the highest number of votes wins, even if that is well below half the total votes cast. Voters are incentivised to cast their vote for a party they do not prefer (the least worst who can plausibly win), to avoid wasting their vote: they are often told “It’s a two-horse race!” or “Only Party X can beat Party Y here!”.
Indeed, in 2019, 70.8% of votes did not count towards the election result – they were cast either for losing candidates; or went to piling up large but meaningless majorities in individual constituencies. (Electoral Reform Society)
A system that offered true voter choice would give a high proportion of voters a representative for whom they had voted, waste as few votes as possible - and allow voters to express their true preferences. This simply doesn’t happen under FPTP.
There are three proportional – fair and equal - voting systems already in use for elections in the UK.
Liberal Democrats have long supported the Single Transferable Vote (STV). This is because STV maximises the power – the choice and voice – of the individual voter. People can choose not just the party they prefer, but individual candidates as well. Dispersing and localising power is fundamental to a healthy, robust liberal democracy and STV sits at the heart of our party’s values. STV today is used for all Northern Ireland elections except for UK General Elections; for Scottish local government elections and for numerous organisations and associations.
However- we also understand that deciding on a replacement for FPTP will need a negotiation not an imposition, even if we had the power to do so. As well as STV there are two other proportional voting systems – List-PR (used for the European Parliament 1999-2019 and for the Wales Senedd from 2027) and Mixed-Member Proportional (used for the Scottish Parliament and the London Assembly) which are in use in the UK and familiar to and trusted by millions of British voters.
Make no mistake: changing our politics is about challenging elite power and control. People and parties that support FPTP conjure up fallacious justifications. The truth is they like a system that gives them disproportionate, undemocratic power. To them a functioning democracy where people feel connected and listened to – and where a majority view holds sway - is not important
But the public is increasingly seeing through the lies – and that FPTP supporters simply want their own power grab.. Well, we know change is essential and that’s why we fight so hard for reform. And time and history is on our side.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,332
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Dec 14, 2023 7:44:54 GMT
It was truly deadly as a disease, with an initial fatality rate of 50% which later reduced to 10% by the time the outbreak was contained. And it was contained - it didn't 'mysteriously disappear'. Really? See here a quick google produced an article from someone who claims to be an expert on viruses, wrote a book on them, who says it mysteriously disappeared and we dont know why. theconversation.com/the-mysterious-disappearance-of-the-first-sars-virus-and-why-we-need-a-vaccine-for-the-current-one-but-didnt-for-the-other-137583 (Prof of envornmental microbiology , marilyn Roossinck, Penn State University. Never heard of her, but hey, its a common statement SARS 1 just disappeared and she doesnt know why). I dont recall his name, but back in 2020 someone was trotted out as the UKs top expert on SARS, who also said we didnt know why SARS 1 disappeared. He reflected that money for research on it stopped dead as soon as it did disappear. Whereas this time round because we are still searching for it, we know covid 19 hasnt disappeared even though most severe cases have. Its endemic with 100,000 new cases every day. To what extent did exactly the same happen with SARS 1?
Roossinck asserts a fatality rate of 10%, but doesnt mention the 50% claim you make. What she writes about sars 1 sounds EXACTLY the same as was written about sars 2/covid-19 and how very deadly it was....before it failed to just disappear as per 1 but instead became wider with many more detected cases. However, the evidence is there for covid 19 too that it disappeared mysteriously before ever reaching the majority of the population...at least if you listen to government experts. Because thats exactly what it did. The original strain was under control as reported by Johnson in autumn 2020 despite a massively lower death rate than his experts had predicted. Both events are explainable if you assume that most people do not get fatal cases, in fact the serious ones are the exception, and mild ones were ignored precisely because they were mild and therefore dismissed as impossible to be the same disease. Roosssinck does indeed explain it was dead easy to tell if someone was infected with SARS1 because they got very ill in just two days. Well suppose she (probably not her personally managing actual patients) got that totally wrong. Just as with Sars 2 covid 19 there were actually masses of non symptomatic or mild cases, which were utterly dismissed from consideration, there was no need to test them in any way because it was obvious they could not have it, because they werent dangerously ill! I dont know if they even had a useable lab test at the time, but if they did its obvious they never bothered with mass testing because she says there was no reason to. Its a unique feature of the covid 19 outbreak that so much mass testing has been done. Even so, not nearly enough even at peak to really detect anything but the minority of cases. Nor indeed are the tests necessarily reliable for low level infections, especially the self administered swab tests.
What seems most likely, is that SARS 1 hit a highly susceptible group just as did SARS 2, while most people were never at risk. Wikipedia says, "In the SARS outbreak of 2003, about 9% of patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-1 infection died.[15] The mortality rate was much higher for those over 60 years old, with mortality rates approaching 50% for this subset of patients.[15]" Which seems to bring together the two claims you mentioned. It would seem just as with Sars 2, sars 1 was way more dangerous for older people. We might therefore also reasonably assume it behaved the same as the later strain in that most cases occurred amongst the young, who however had mild disease, and so according to Roossinck would have been dismissed as not infected because they didnt have those serious symptoms!
We know SARS 1 and SARS 2 create cross immunity to each other. Wiki mention it is believed a resurgence of SARS1 was due to a second crossing of the virus from animals to humans. In China. Its very obvious this must have been going on for centuries of not millenia in that part of the world. Its not surprising China had such a low covid 19 death rate, and managed to contain it so well, because it was not a novel infection to them.
Wiki also says "In late May 2003, studies from samples of wild animals sold as food in the local market in Guangdong, China, found a strain of SARS coronavirus could be isolated from masked palm civets (Paguma sp.), but the animals did not always show clinical signs." And so, here we are. The same disease in animals did not necessarily show symptoms. Why would that not also be true for humans? And incidentally, nor was it proved whether the civets in question had originated the disease and were passing it to humans, or had been entirely innocent but caught it from their human handlers. You will recall how sars 2 was found to be quite transmissable to a range of domesticated animals.
The article also mentions that in 2005 US researchers experimented on endemic bat viruses, inserting genes capable of infecting humans, to show how this might happen. Again infected bats had no symptoms. I notice how the human population seems to be fast approaching this same situation with SARS2.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,332
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Dec 14, 2023 7:52:49 GMT
By all means encourage others to vote for who they actually want to vote for, but please own the potential consequences of that call. Labour are the only alternative government to the Tories. It's either them, or the Tories. End of. And there you summarise why a steadily growing proportion of people hate both parties. which ultimately has to end in the destruction of the system as it falls to total disrepute. The start of the 20th century was the moment in time when circumstances came together for widespread switch to democracy. The start of the 21st century is shaping up as the point at which democracy fell from favour once again. Whats killing it is simply politicians lying to gain short term advantage. This years Reith lecturer was asked why he didnt mention the problem of lying politicians while talking about the failings of democracy. He replied he considered it, but on the whole believes pointing this out simply offends politicians and makes them less likely to cooperate with other means to protect democracy. Whereas presumably continuing to lie is seen as a non negotiable right. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 8:00:48 GMT
The insanity of MAGA while the rapist traitor thinks he's a god christofascist speaker of the house Mike Johnson thinks he's moses. The are dangerously delusional people. youtu.be/Q977CTRUJ8Y?si=HRlp0rA6p8HroYS- |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,332
Member is Online
|
Post by Danny on Dec 14, 2023 8:01:33 GMT
The barrister probably shut it down because he hadn't researched that stuff, or didn't understand it. I doubt that many lawyers have much more than an intelligent layman's understanding of statistics and so on. EDIT: alec has been following things more closely than I have and has another explanation - that this stuff has already been covered All the witnesses seem to have made full written statements. Indeed have had two goes at such statements with initial submissions and also final ones after some sort of review process. What we are seeing in court is what the tribunal barristers have chosen to ask about specifically, whether thats to try to elicit more detail or simply to make certain statements stand out much more to the watching public. They seem to have a big agenda in what they want witnesses to highlight, and what not to mention at all. I noticed an example where Johnson was asked a question and two or three times began an answer which the barrister tried to shut him up on. Eventually Johnson insisted that what he was saying was relevant to the answer he was explaining. The tribunal didnt seem to want him to talk about how the epidemic was under control autumn 2020 without the need for lockdown, at least before the kent strain came along. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on Dec 14, 2023 8:03:14 GMT
lens - "alec - perhaps you'd like to give some thought to the deaf and hard and hearing, as well to those with autism? Because to that group, widespread mask wearing was a nightmare." Yes, as we've discussed before, for some, masking is a real problem. There are a range of clear faced masks so you can see people's lips as they speak, but personally I find them a bit spooky. As discussed many times before, the real solutions are the ones where protection is taken out of the hands of the individuals to act and more the re-engineering of the wider environment to reduce risks. This is how we have reduced and eliminated every disease in the past. In terms of the democracy argument, you argue that a minority shouldn't be able to impose their will on the majority, which is broadly correct in principle, but with some obvious flaws. Deaf people shouldn't be able to prevent mask mandates, because they're a minority, for example, but there are more fundamental issues. Immunocompromised people are a minority, and we generally take the view that minorities need protection from harm. But not, it seems, from this harm. If the majority wishes to tolerate infection levels that risk severe outcomes and death for the 5% in this category, I'm not that's a good example of the majority imposing their will. But again, let's not get too bogged down in the mask debate. Masks do work, and yes, we have a great deal of solid evidence for this, but they aren't a viable long term strategy. What's missing is the society wide ambition to make life better. It's a very simple question; is it better to be sick more, or less often? Which then then leads to the question of the cost effectiveness of being sick more, or less options, and the measures take to achieve these. Allowing a dangerous sickness to run through society time and again with no mitigations is the most expensive option, so loses on both counts.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 14, 2023 8:03:24 GMT
.... I can understand getting rid of this Tory government is a priority but it's not the only thing that matters. priority? For me it's the priority. I'm afraid it is for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 8:09:54 GMT
A priority? For me it's the priority. I'm afraid it is for me. Necessary, but not sufficient. That is surely the point? And a fair one. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 14, 2023 8:11:38 GMT
If Benton is given a suspension long enough to trigger a recall should be a straight forward pick up for labour . Benton is an " interesting " character an openly gay married man. Yet firmly opposed to women's control of their own bodies and names the old testament as his favourite book! Bone's seat of Wellingborough would be a considerable challenge but given Labour did win it in the landslides of 1997 and 2001 might well be in play. That's a mighty feat of cognitive dissonance on Benton's part. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 14, 2023 8:13:10 GMT
Necessary, but not sufficient. That is surely the point? And a fair one. Can you explain that I don't know what you mean by that comment. Sorry. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 8:15:48 GMT
steveThe only thing I would add is we need compulsory voting with the proviso you cam spoil your vote and or opt for none of the above I consider voting not just a right but a responsibility/duty Hopefully this would mean political parties take more notice of all people
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 8:16:59 GMT
Actually, I was talking about “ideological purity” issue. Sorry, a bit of brain faze on my part… |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Dec 14, 2023 8:24:53 GMT
steve
A very articulate and eloquent exposition of the iniquities of our current unrepresentative electoral system and why it needs to be replaced with a system that democratically reflects more accurately how people vote in elections.
I clearly see how important an issue this is for the party of which you are a member and I have been encouraged by the growing support for radical electoral reform amongst Labour members, MPs, voters and affiliated trade unions. It's an idea whose time has come and in terms of my continued membership of the Labour Party, as well as my continued voting for them, it is a complete deal breaker for me.
I understand Starmer and his leadership team's current caution as we head into an utterly crucial election for our nation's future, and I'm patient and expediently minded enough, to see some greater immediate priorities for an incoming Starmer government, for now anyway, but if the party leadership sets its face against electoral reform and supports the continuation of FPTP, then my lifetime of support for them is over and I'm well and truly done with them. It really is that important an issue for me. And the health of our democracy too.
So, Steve, in the event of that baleful scenario transpiring, keep a place warm for me in the Lib Dem household!
|
|
|
|
Post by athena on Dec 14, 2023 8:34:56 GMT
crossbat11 "Ejecting the Tories from government may well be a national emergency now. Petty grudge settling and point scoring on the left should be subordinated by this necessity. The realisation too that this division may be the Tories last hope of clinging on... Let's get shot of them and worry about what follows later. It can only be better than this rotten government. Dave "if Labour do win it will be because millions of us got off our arses and voted for them and got this rankest, most horrible of governments out whilst allowing you the luxury of keeping your political purism... Labour are the only alternative government to the Tories. It's either them, or the Tories. End of. " This old drum getting another enthusiastic banging. I don't think it's required - your view clearly has wide support amongst UKPR2 contributors and - I think - the wider public. I suggest that the number of 'purists' is actually very small. I think (someone more attentive will be able to confirm or correct me) that in the rash of recent byelections minor parties were squeezed pretty effectively, which suggests to me that most radical voters aren't minded to take even a small risk of another 5 years of the Tories - if someone is not willing to risk a Lab/LD defeat in a byelection that won't change the govt or even deprive it of a majority then it's hard to see why they'd take that risk in a GE, where the stake is much higher. If Lab has a consistent double-digit polling leads all the way to polling day I think there will be more lefties, greenies and other radicals who decide that Lab has enough votes from elsewhere to keep the Tories out and that they're therefore not risking much by refusing to vote for a programme they don't support. If it looks like being a tight election the risk calculation is different and the decision trickier. I don't want to repeat well-rehearsed arguments, but there are a couple of non-policy points that I don't think have been put quite this way before: 1. Nearly all governments are coalitions, explicit or implicit. Under FPTP we usually get implicit coalitions and the electorate gets much less say in their composition. Starmer has decided to put together a centrist coalition rather than one that involves radicals, lefties or greenies. His coalition will probably win a majority, but we'll never know whether an alternative coalition could have been constructed and so the idea that Lab can only ever win power from the centre is perpetuated. Why should people who don't support Lab policies be held to ransom in this way, told that defeating the Tories must take priority and that everything else can wait? Why should voters who don't support Lab coalitions that lean to the centre or right be stuck with voting for them because Lab leaders like to exploit FPTP, apparently happy with the devil's bargain of absolute power every ten to fifteen years? Absolute power that's then used, somewhat paradoxically, to implement policies that would easily command support from an explicit coalition government elected under PR! It's hard to see how this changes unless Lab moves to supporting PR (at which point I personally would be willing to cast a one-off tactical vote for it) or there's a Lab election loss that can reasonably be attributed to a high vote for radical alternative parties. Lab relies too heavily on a visceral antipathy to the Tories. It's an article of faith for anti-Tories that anything not-Tory is automatically a worthwhile improvement, but this largely absolves the Lab Opposition of their duty to earn the votes of this segment of the electorate. Voting Lab when you don't support their policies just reinforces the Lab tactic of exploiting FPTP to build a centrist implicit coalition that locks other parties and perspectives out of power altogether. 2. Lab's strongest claim on votes is probably that a Starmer-led government would be more competent than the current govt. We have a notably talentless Cabinet and the Tories are certainly hamming up their part as the villains of the pantomine, but the Shadow Cabinet isn't exactly stuffed with confidence-inspiring Secretaries of State-in-waiting. More concerning is the leadership's control-freakery, the internal purges and the tight control exercised over selection (another way in which Starmer dictates the make-up of the implicit coalition that anti-Tories are supposed to feel obliged to support). Jamie Driscoll, the incumbent mayor of North Tyne, not even long-listed - whatever his ideology he's a practical politician who has been working collaboratively on the ground to make a difference to people's lives. Diane Abbott still suspended, despite a swift apology for a clumsily worded letter (contrast with Rupa Huq - who supported Owen Smith's challenge to Corbyn: she had the whip restored 5 months after losing it for saying Kwarteng was 'only superficially black'). Now Nick Brown, hardly a leftie, has resigned saying his lawyers have advised him that under the disciplinary process, which has been running for ages, he may not get a fair hearing. There will be loads more that I don't know about. This doesn't smell like a well-governed, trustworthy organisation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 8:36:24 GMT
Necessary, but not sufficient. That is surely the point? And a fair one. Can you explain that I don't know what you mean by that comment. Sorry. I recall this as an old exam question. Distinguish between the ‘necessary’ and the ‘sufficient’. In this case, what we want is a transformation in the political landscape. For this, removal of the Tories is ‘necessary’, but it is not ‘sufficient’. This is a fair point for c-a-r-f-r-e-w and shevii to make. It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want. |
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 14, 2023 8:37:51 GMT
Can you explain that I don't know what you mean by that comment. Sorry. I recall this as an old exam question. Distinguish between the ‘necessary’ and the ‘sufficient’. In this case, what we want is a transformation in the political landscape. For this, removal of the Tories is ‘necessary’, but it is not ‘sufficient’. This is a fair point for c-a-r-f-r-e-w and shevii to make. It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want. Thanks. It's a bloody good start though. |
|
|
|
Post by athena on Dec 14, 2023 8:38:49 GMT
Good grief. Sorry everyone, more of an essay than I realised!
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,362
Member is Online
|
Post by neilj on Dec 14, 2023 8:45:05 GMT
Rafwan'It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want' This is the issue, I very much doubt all those who are considering voting Labour next time agree with what it is 'we all want' The main political parties need to appeal to a broad coalition of voters if they want to gain power. Unless and until we have a form of PR this will unfortunately always be the case
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 8:46:14 GMT
neiljI have no problem with mandatory voting, however knowing your vote is no longer electorally meaningless should encourage participation in any case. Those who choose not to vote even when their votes count are a tough nut to crack. Compulsory voting might hopefully encourage them to think about their choice but it does open up the possibility of malign/right wing populist influence. On balance I think it's a risk worth taking.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbara on Dec 14, 2023 8:46:34 GMT
I think the debate over whether or not to hold your nose and vote for Labour is the age old one between pragmatism and idealism.
And we do need both. Idealists prod us pragmatists along the route by reminding us where we want to get to. But the getting to that goal requires pragmatism and the art of the possible. Pragmatists say, Never let the perfect get in the way of getting the good and idealists say I can't settle for the good and will continue to strive for the perfect.
I suspect idealists are more often disappointed than pragmatists.
I have a theory that all of the great things in life - art, music, great writing, the pursuit of beauty, visions of a better future, humanitarian goals, fortitude, courage, champions (as well as some of the most terrible stuff done in the name of ideology and dogmatism and idealism) are driven by striving for the perfection by idealists.
The rest of us pragmatists tend not to be great creators but do our best to make the stuff that idealists give us work as well as it can.
The reason I enjoyed my job so much was that I was able to make sense of, moderate and ultimately deliver in the best possible way what politicians gave us.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,618
|
Post by steve on Dec 14, 2023 8:47:29 GMT
athenaDon't apologise I don't know what came over me either one line and a photo is my normal limit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 8:48:39 GMT
athena ’s comments elucidate my point well. I share all her well-argued concerns. But in the balance of things, I am certain that Starmer will bring us closer to what we want.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,123
|
Post by domjg on Dec 14, 2023 8:53:15 GMT
Can you explain that I don't know what you mean by that comment. Sorry. I recall this as an old exam question. Distinguish between the ‘necessary’ and the ‘sufficient’. In this case, what we want is a transformation in the political landscape. For this, removal of the Tories is ‘necessary’, but it is not ‘sufficient’. This is a fair point for c-a-r-f-r-e-w and shevii to make. It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want. If you want bold, long lasting change then it needs to be slow and incremental because in a democracy you need to take people with you and dodge the still all too effective bullets and slings from the right wing media which will just shoot you right back down if you fly too high, too soon. It's a long game and about changing the parameters of debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Rafwan on Dec 14, 2023 8:56:01 GMT
Rafwan 'It is then for you (and me) to show how unconditional support for Starmer is most likely to bring us closer to the transformation we all want' This is the issue, I very much doubt all those who are considering voting Labour next time agree with what it is 'we all want' The main political parties need to appeal to a broad coalition of voters if they want to gain power. Unless and until we have a form of PR this will unfortunately always be the case What we all want is a fairer and more secure world where everyone is decently accommodated, healthy, educated, able to work and generally cared for. Who disagrees with that? It is for us to show that Starmer and Labour will bring this closer. |
|
