|
Post by wb61 on Jan 23, 2024 14:56:32 GMT
There are limits to free speech. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used "Shouting fire in a crowded theater", by implication falsely shouting, as an example where free speech is not protected under the First Amendment. Although, in most cases, Fascist or Communist regimes have taken power by force, the case of Venezuela in 1998, where Hugo Chavez was elected as President, is a clear example of what you fear. Unfortunately I have no encouragement for you; the sovereignty of Parliament (technically the Crown in Parliament) allows a majority to have its own way. Note that Chavez was elected by 56% of the voters on a 63% turnout, so would have triumphed on any system. Brandenburg v. Ohio actually limited the Oliver Wendell Holmes approach if you are interested this Wiki page deals with it quite well: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater#:~:text=United%20States%20affirmed%20that%20the,ruling%20of%20United%20States%20v.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 15:00:20 GMT
Would Voltaire have worried about any of that ? I understood he was no fan of democracy due to the idiocy of the masses ( a follower of @domg !) and favoured an enlightened monarchy. Not sure you are engaging with my point. I did indicate that the quote should be considered Voltairean rather than a direct representation of Voltaire. I was more concerned with, what I consider to be, the philosophical conundrum. understood.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 15:30:03 GMT
You'd deny that many people are easily manipulable and that powerful forces who want to distract from their own failings and 'getting away with it' are desperately trying to exploit that by directing their anger down and not up? " many people " ? Which people ? People with problems you will never have ,with opinions you don't share . People failed by governments you ( or i ! ) approve of ? Of course there will be people you dont like who will offer to sort it all out for them. Thats democracy No Colin that's not Democracy, thats Populism.
Democracy requires much more than that. Things like .. Respect for the rule of law, Accountablility and constraint of power, Losers consent , Respect for and inclusion of minorites.
What you describe is little more than demagoguery.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 15:36:57 GMT
robbiealive It may or may not surprise you but I entirely agree with your point on state overreach control of free speech, there are public safety limitations but essentially if it's not dangerous or intentionally malicious then it's an individual's right ,a view I held while a police officer and not nearly as uncommon a position among officers as you might think.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,320
|
Post by steve on Jan 23, 2024 15:42:23 GMT
colinAround half of republicans are comfortable with having their leader run an autocracy and lock up or assassinate those who oppose him. I don't think democracy enters into this or similar equations.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 15:43:07 GMT
" many people " ? Which people ? People with problems you will never have ,with opinions you don't share . People failed by governments you ( or i ! ) approve of ? Of course there will be people you dont like who will offer to sort it all out for them. Thats democracy No Colin that's not Democracy, thats Populism.
Democracy requires much more than that. Things like .. Respect for the rule of law, Accountablility and constraint of power, Losers consent , Respect for and inclusion of minorites.
What you describe is little more than demagoguery.
Indeed and it's why Germany has a constitutional court that is being tested at the moment. At the end of the day we can't tolerate those putting themselves up for office that have the intention to destroy democracy or other clearly understood rights. It's not a free for all and never should be. There is also a responsibility on individuals to recognise such snake oil salesmen when they do get through and not be seduced by them and of course a responsibility on the media to handle them appropriately.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 23, 2024 15:44:05 GMT
Neil,
Thanks for your just above.
Fitting with the swingback discussion and sorry to repeat from a week or 2 back but I think the rate of DK return wont be linear.
Those voters who have been saying DK for longer splitting less favourably for the Tories than recent waverers.
So, the Tories will recover a diminishing gain from their 2019 voters currently saying DK as they make up their minds.
In the context of recent polls this means a bigger %age swingback than when the Lab lead was say 3% lower; with the underlying projection being a 1% increase, for example, rather than 1.5%
From your post the crucial number for me remains the 12% Tory 2019 now saying Lab which has been a ballpark number for a year or more.
This on it's own propels Labour in to slight lead at a GE and when a small gain through LD churn, demographic changes and differential turnout (more Tory WV) is added on we get a clear Labour win of perhaps 10%.
My pessimism leads me to reduce the 12% to 10% ish as I think some life-long Tories will not switch in the end some becoming WV perhaps.
This gets me to 6-8% victory margin with my caution leading to my going for the lower level when asked recently.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 15:49:09 GMT
" many people " ? Which people ? People with problems you will never have ,with opinions you don't share . People failed by governments you ( or i ! ) approve of ? Of course there will be people you dont like who will offer to sort it all out for them. Thats democracy No Colin that's not Democracy, thats Populism.
Democracy requires much more than that. Things like .. Respect for the rule of law, Accountablility and constraint of power, Losers consent , Respect for and inclusion of minorites.
What you describe is little more than demagoguery.
What isn't Democracy? I am in favour of democracy. !!! What protects it is its Institutions-The Rule of Law. Elections. Peaceful transfer of power...... Not arbitrary decisions about who may vote for what. If governments fail to address problems and concerns they lose elections. It is for the Institutions of Democracy to ensure that the winners of those elections obey the Constitution. It is not for anyone else in a functioning democracy to tell people that they cannot vote for the party of their choice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 15:57:56 GMT
It's not a free for all and never should be. There is also a responsibility on individuals to recognise such snake oil salesmen when they do get through and not be seduced by them and of course a responsibility on the media to handle them appropriately. Snake Oil comes in all colours. It is for The Institutions and the Courts to decide if it is within the Law. Otherwise its mob rule and pitchforks you are encouraging. You cannot tell people that their concerns are of no consequence and will not be addressed. Not in a Democracy and expect to carry on governing. Question-would you -had you the power-allow this man to have won this election ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Argentine_general_electionSecond Question-who is peddling Snake Oil ?-Milei-or the catalogue of Peronist Left Populists who fucked his country up ? And whilst you are deciding what are the poor Argentinian voters supposed to do ?
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 23, 2024 16:00:19 GMT
joeboy - "But, if you listen to the phone ins, or read the papers, while people do point out the strains and stresses being experienced in some localities, there is also a widespread majority recognition that 'we've been there' and a desire to do the right thing." Good to hear that - I suspected there would be plenty of counter voices. Fully appreciate the dilemma. Social systems are built for slow, predictable change, and these days, most states underfund them anyway because we're all in hoc to the neoliberal nonsense that says taxation is bad. Your point about 75,000 from Ukraine is also very appropriate. On a UK basis that equates to nearly 1m, and we took....175,000. That's pathetic, and will be one of the reasons why Ireland has so many per capita.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 23, 2024 16:04:22 GMT
A few us had a mini-debate yesterday about the tendency for fairly mediocre Tory politicians to have their qualities and abilities grossly inflated by a client media, Cheerleading, adulation and sycophancy where objective scrutiny and proper journalism should be. News organisations so dedicated to either the election or continuation of a Tory Government that all critical faculties are sacrificed for this greater good. This extends to constant defamation, misrepresentation and demonisation of opposition politicians. No matter how mediocre or incompetent a Tory politician may be, we're often told instead that we're in the company of greatness. Only time and retrospective scrutiny reveals the truth. By which time, of course, the damage is often done. I sort of followed this discussion & the one about Tory competence which preceded it: but I'm not sure what the point is. 1. Johnson & Truss were incompetent & unfit to be PMs. Enough said. 2. Sunak was the last person standing. P. Mordaunt came close, tho difficult to see her qualifications other than she was good at carrying a heavy object while partly sedated by painkillers. Is Sunak competent? He earned respect in the lockdown because, having been thrown in at the deep end, he acted quickly & threw money around (the mistakes were revealed later). But while no doubt capable at technical stuff, he's not v competent at "politics": too opportunistic, too many resets, too many lies, too tetchy, repetitive & non-answering in interviews. The polls tell the tale. 3. But he was hanpered by his inheritance: (a) There have been so many purges following new PMs being appointed, & endless ministerial appointments & sackings, that he's ended up with cabinet miniters many of whom in a half-decent admonistration would be no where near that status. Watch the clip yesterday between Kay Burley & the utterly inept culture secretary. news.sky.com/video/bbc-culture-secretary-lucy-frazer-tells-kay-burley-on-occasion-the-bbc-has-been-biased-13053822. Kay, my hero, is so fed up with Tory third-raters she now openly mocks them. She can't stop laughing. See below/ (b) The party is in the habit of rebellion: eg., over house building (c) The party is domonated by right wingers the cast of Death Wish 10, who only hv two policies: Rwanda -- which neither Sunak or Cleverley beliece in -- & tax cuts. 4. Of course the right-wing press bigs up uselss ministers. What do you expect? 5. There is a deeper problem here. Extreme right-wing thinking has a corrupting influence on politics & ideology & it has had that effect on the Tory party: on its disastrous decisions to appoint useless PMs, & the declining calibre of the people who occupy cabinat positions. The current Tory shibboleths: Brexit, English nationalism, and obsessions with immigration & preserving an idealised English cultural identity are political dead-ends. They do not engage people under 50: They are the concerns of the old, retired & economically inactive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 16:16:28 GMT
I think some life-long Tories will not switch in the end some becoming WV perhaps. I can see that being a feature. But Starmer can affect it I think , because these people are by definition not dies hard Con voters
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jan 23, 2024 16:17:21 GMT
This is where it goes - twitter.com/Africahealth24The "Pan-African Epidemic/Pandemic Working Group" has just been set up and claims to be "A group of African academics fighting the re-colonisation of Africa by challenging the new WHO Treaty and amended International Health Regulations." They are challenging several WHO initiatives aimed at improving the health of Africans, but strangely, they are formed largely by the western tenured academics who were behind the dreadful Great Barrington Declaration, and who have supported several notorious right wing anti vax groups. The entire edifice of the GBD was backed by far right 'dark money', clearly they've now seen something in the public health mission for Africa they don't like, so are deploying resources there. I do wish more people would wake up to the reality of what they have done to our public health. The right wing have suckered so many on the liberal left, and now they are on the march. Go look at that paper on manipulation techniques I posted this morning to get a flavour of the horseshit that we've sucked up on covid, and try to understand why the far right is now emboldened. We'll soon be talking about reversing smoking bans, and they will literally stop at nothing to dismantle public health whenever they get the chance. They are terrified of any form of state led, collective endeavour that is seen to work. That's why they were so determined to claim that measures to prevent the spread of covid were unsuccessful/too expensive/too harmful. We've gifted them that win, so they're lining up the next target.
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jan 23, 2024 16:17:29 GMT
Thanks to neilj for the analysis of Con2019 voters per YouGov above. But the pattern of their losses continues to go unnoticed in the media, and here there is something really remarkable going on. I have posted numerous times on 'proportional swing' and in particular how the Tories are losing more support in their stronger demographics. But it's actually worse than that: per YouGov, they are losing an above-average proportion of their voters in their stong regions, and retaining more of their small level of support wherever they were weak. These are the average Vote-retention proportions per the average of the past 6 published YouGov polls (7th Dec onwards): 1 Remain Voters 12/19% = 63% retention 2 London 18/32% = 56% retention 3 Scotland 14/25% = 56% retention 4 Wales 19/36% = 54% retention 5 North of England 20.5/39% = 53% retention 6 Leave Voters 38/74% = 51% retention 7 C2DE Social class 24/48% = 50% retention 8 ABC1 Social Class 21/43% = 49% retention 9 Midlands 27/55% = 47% retention 10 South of England 26.5/55% = 45% retention The overall average Con VI is around 22-23% now with YouGov compared to 44.7% at GE2019, so the norm with a proportional swing would be 50% retention across the board. But of course most models of how seats might change hands are based on the the simple 'Uniform national Swing' under which each party gains or loses by the same amount in each seat. This produces a pattern where the proportion of votes lost (or gained) can vary hugely dependent on the level of support at the previous election. So for a comparison to the table of losses above, this is how Uniform National Swing would predict the Conservatives' vote share, per the same groups: 1 Leave Voters 52/74% = 70% retention 2 South of England 33/55% = 60% retention 3 Midlands 33/55% = 60% retention 4 C2DE Social Class 26/48% = 54% retention 5 ABC1 Social Class 21/43% = 49% retention 6 North of England 17/39% = 44% retention 7 Wales 14/36% = 39% retention 8 London 10/32% = 31% retention 9 Scotland 3/25% = 12% retention 10 Remain Voters 0*/19% = 0% retention *UNS currently puts the Conservatives on a -3% vote-share with this group. The two tables are not quite in reverse order, but getting close to that. For the ABC1 and C2DE groups, YG recorded the Conservative vote in 2019 as close to their 44.7% overall share for each, so the fact that these come out in the middle is entirely what we should expect. This really is unprecedented: even in the 1997 General Election, the detailed results ended up close to the mid-point between a uniform and proportional swing, so that while the Tories lost a higher number of votes in their safer areas, they still held a higher proportion of their 1992 vote in the same areas and groups. The difference between the two tables above explains the huge divergence between UNS and MRP/ proportional models. And any narrative that claims that 'Labour need a record breaking 12.7% swing for an overall majority' is based on the same assumptions behind the second table above, rather than the detailed findings of the first.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 16:21:27 GMT
It's not a free for all and never should be. There is also a responsibility on individuals to recognise such snake oil salesmen when they do get through and not be seduced by them and of course a responsibility on the media to handle them appropriately. Snake Oil comes in all colours. It is for The Institutions and the Courts to decide if it is within the Law. Otherwise its mob rule and pitchforks you are encouraging. You cannot tell people that their concerns are of no consequence and will not be addressed. Not in a Democracy and expect to carry on governing. Question-would you -had you the power-allow this man to have won this election ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Argentine_general_electionSecond Question-who is peddling Snake Oil ?-Milei-or the catalogue of Peronist Left Populists who fucked his country up ? And whilst you are deciding what are the poor Argentinian voters supposed to do ? People's real concerns are their livelihoods, mortgage rates, cost of living, state of schools and hospitals. Right wing snake oil salesmen aim to distract from that by trying to rile them into believing their way of life is threatened by immigrants or trans people or women or global co-operation or liberal do-gooders or goodness else know what..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 16:27:28 GMT
Snake Oil comes in all colours. It is for The Institutions and the Courts to decide if it is within the Law. Otherwise its mob rule and pitchforks you are encouraging. You cannot tell people that their concerns are of no consequence and will not be addressed. Not in a Democracy and expect to carry on governing. Question-would you -had you the power-allow this man to have won this election ? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Argentine_general_electionSecond Question-who is peddling Snake Oil ?-Milei-or the catalogue of Peronist Left Populists who fucked his country up ? And whilst you are deciding what are the poor Argentinian voters supposed to do ? People's real concerns are their livelihoods, mortgage rates, cost of living, state of schools and hospitals. Right wing snake oil salesmen aim to distract from that by trying to rile them into believing their way of life is threatened by immigrants or trans people or women or global co-operation or liberal do-gooders or goodness else know what.. And if loc governments fail to address those concerns and fail to manage and integrate increasingly significant numbers of immigrants ( its a trend whether you like it or not) -what are voters supposed to do in your universe ?
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 16:31:28 GMT
No Colin that's not Democracy, thats Populism.
Democracy requires much more than that. Things like .. Respect for the rule of law, Accountablility and constraint of power, Losers consent , Respect for and inclusion of minorites.
What you describe is little more than demagoguery.
What isn't Democracy? I am in favour of democracy. !!! What protects it is its Institutions-The Rule of Law. Elections. Peaceful transfer of power...... Not arbitrary decisions about who may vote for what. If governments fail to address problems and concerns they lose elections. It is for the Institutions of Democracy to ensure that the winners of those elections obey the Constitution. It is not for anyone else in a functioning democracy to tell people that they cannot vote for the party of their choice. "It is not for anyone else in a functioning democracy to tell people that they cannot vote for the party of their choice" - Absolutely. It is however absolutely necessary that a functioning democracy protects itself from entities putting themselves forward in the first place that would seek to destroy it or gravely damage society. That's the purpose of Germany's constitutional court which was created for very good reason following the failure of Weimar democracy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court
|
|
|
Post by thylacine on Jan 23, 2024 16:34:22 GMT
People's real concerns are their livelihoods, mortgage rates, cost of living, state of schools and hospitals. Right wing snake oil salesmen aim to distract from that by trying to rile them into believing their way of life is threatened by immigrants or trans people or women or global co-operation or liberal do-gooders or goodness else know what.. And if loc governments fail to address those concerns and fail to manage and integrate increasingly significant numbers of immigrants ( its a trend whether you like it or not) -what are voters supposed to do in your universe ? When did we start describing the present Tory government as loc? I don't suppose you think it's right to start by pandering to xenophobic and transphobic hate or indeed peddling it?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 16:35:52 GMT
What isn't Democracy? I am in favour of democracy. !!! What protects it is its Institutions-The Rule of Law. Elections. Peaceful transfer of power...... Not arbitrary decisions about who may vote for what. If governments fail to address problems and concerns they lose elections. It is for the Institutions of Democracy to ensure that the winners of those elections obey the Constitution. It is not for anyone else in a functioning democracy to tell people that they cannot vote for the party of their choice. "It is not for anyone else in a functioning democracy to tell people that they cannot vote for the party of their choice" - Absolutely. It is however absolutely necessary that a functioning democracy protects itself from entities putting themselves forward in the first place that would seek to destroy it or gravely damage society. That's the purpose of Germany's constitutional court which was created for very good reason following the failure of Weimar democracy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_CourtIndeed. We await their decision if they make one and what the criteria are.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 16:37:00 GMT
People's real concerns are their livelihoods, mortgage rates, cost of living, state of schools and hospitals. Right wing snake oil salesmen aim to distract from that by trying to rile them into believing their way of life is threatened by immigrants or trans people or women or global co-operation or liberal do-gooders or goodness else know what.. And if loc governments fail to address those concerns and fail to manage and integrate increasingly significant numbers of immigrants ( its a trend whether you like it or not) -what are voters supposed to do in your universe ? What strange questions you ask.. My 'universe'? I'm listing things that are probably most people's actual concerns as that's what they are through the ages. Politicians and the media however do have power to deliberately distract and generate false fear elsewhere so as not to have to deal with these. Why is it the tory party talks not so much about bread and butter issues but more about immigration and culture war nonsense?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 16:43:21 GMT
And if loc governments fail to address those concerns and fail to manage and integrate increasingly significant numbers of immigrants ( its a trend whether you like it or not) -what are voters supposed to do in your universe ? What strange questions you ask.. My 'universe'? I'm listing things that are probably most people's actual concerns as that's what they are through the ages. Politicians and the media however do have power to deliberately distract and generate false fear elsewhere so as not to have to deal with these. Why is it the tory party talks not so much about bread and butter issues but more about immigration and culture war nonsense? But for you the effects of unmanaged immigration are not a concern and so far as i can see you think are something which should not be a matter for political debate or choice. This is why you will always be horror struck when voters turn to a far right offering in place of a failure by mainstream L or R governments. You blame the voters. I blame the governments.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,904
|
Post by Danny on Jan 23, 2024 16:52:53 GMT
But for you the effects of unmanaged immigration are not a concern and so far as i can see are something which should not be a matter for political debate or choice. I am more concerned by the effects of managed immigration, where we are encouraging millions to come to the Uk each year. As EU members it was a lot more likely those invited here to work would eventually leave again after being useful and before becoming pensioners themselves. While boat people has been pushed to the centre of public attention by the government, the real problem, indeed scandal, is what to do about the people being invited to come here. Con have used the fuss about boats to hide the glaring failure of their policy to halt immigration post brexit. All brexit did was permit the boat people to come, and make it less likely the invitees would leave. A disaster for anyone on the right worried about immigrants.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,074
|
Post by neilj on Jan 23, 2024 16:59:32 GMT
colinYou make a valid point about Government's not addressing people's concerns, but the problem is addressing the concerns of one group often causing concern in another group I give Brexit as an example, the hard Brexit Johnson and the tories went for addressed concerns for those who were worried about (from their perspective) lack of sovereignty, immigration and an European superstate But by addressing the concerns the Government has caused concern to those who want to remain close to the EU, to take advantage of freedom of movement, economic growth and European solidarity What I'm saying it's just about impossible for any Government to address concerns without causing upset to other groups
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 17:07:38 GMT
colin You make a valid point about Government's not addressing people's concerns, but the problem is addressing the concerns of one group often causing concern in another group I give Brexit as an example, the hard Brexit Johnson and the tories went for addressed concerns for those who were worried about (from their perspective) lack of sovereignty, immigration and an European superstate But by addressing the concerns the Government has caused concern to those who want to remain close to the EU, to take advantage of freedom of movement, economic growth and European solidarity What I'm saying it's just about impossible for any Government to address concerns without causing upset to other groups But thats what governments should do. Balance the concerns of all and find fair solutions. I agree its not easy and getting harder. The Brexit thing was way way beyond day to day domestic social or economic policy. It should never have been decided by a simple vote in that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2024 17:09:05 GMT
But for you the effects of unmanaged immigration are not a concern and so far as i can see are something which should not be a matter for political debate or choice. I am more concerned by the effects of managed immigration, where we are encouraging millions to come to the Uk each year. As EU members it was a lot more likely those invited here to work would eventually leave again after being useful and before becoming pensioners themselves. While boat people has been pushed to the centre of public attention by the government, the real problem, indeed scandal, is what to do about the people being invited to come here. Con have used the fuss about boats to hide the glaring failure of their policy to halt immigration post brexit. All brexit did was permit the boat people to come, and make it less likely the invitees would leave. A disaster for anyone on the right worried about immigrants. We were really talking about Germany. Too tired to talk about UK now & I have posted far too much today.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,417
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 23, 2024 17:15:56 GMT
"How could John Major have scored so high on likeability??" - It's a sign of the times that I didn't like him in the slightest in the 90s but in hindsight from 2024 he seems almost a principled, political colossus. Major had two things going for him in 1990-92: (a) he wasn't Margaret Thatcher, who had become very unpopular by the end of her reign. Dullness was seen a something of a virtue in contrast; (b) he wasn't Neil Kinnock. The polling on leader popularity at the time reflects that.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,074
|
Post by neilj on Jan 23, 2024 17:23:44 GMT
colin You make a valid point about Government's not addressing people's concerns, but the problem is addressing the concerns of one group often causing concern in another group I give Brexit as an example, the hard Brexit Johnson and the tories went for addressed concerns for those who were worried about (from their perspective) lack of sovereignty, immigration and an European superstate But by addressing the concerns the Government has caused concern to those who want to remain close to the EU, to take advantage of freedom of movement, economic growth and European solidarity What I'm saying it's just about impossible for any Government to address concerns without causing upset to other groups But thats what governments should do. Balance the concerns of all and find fair solutions. I agree its not easy and getting harder. The Brexit thing was way way beyond day to day domestic social or economic policy. It should never have been decided by a simple vote in that way. I agree Government's should try and find fair solutions, but in fairness to all Government's that's not easy. Take immigration, there's concern by one side its too high, but businesses want it to address acute Labour shortages. A solution certainly isn't easy and will almost certainly upset one group or the other Also agree with your second point, it shouldn't have been decided that way. Although having decided to leave the EU a compromise such as staying in the single market could have helped address some concerns while abiding by the Referendum result, which seemed to me would have been a fair compromise/solution
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 23, 2024 17:29:16 GMT
What strange questions you ask.. My 'universe'? I'm listing things that are probably most people's actual concerns as that's what they are through the ages. Politicians and the media however do have power to deliberately distract and generate false fear elsewhere so as not to have to deal with these. Why is it the tory party talks not so much about bread and butter issues but more about immigration and culture war nonsense? But for you the effects of unmanaged immigration are not a concern and so far as i can see you think are something which should not be a matter for political debate or choice. This is why you will always be horror struck when voters turn to a far right offering in place of a failure by mainstream L or R governments. You blame the voters. I blame the governments. I absolutely do not think that unmanaged immigration would not be concerning, that would be crazy. What we have now is managed immigration as the economy as currently constituted and demographics demands and international obligations on providing sanctuary. This is managed as such by a government that at the same time tries to tell it's supporters that this is somehow not it's policy and that immigration threatens them or rather not the huge amount of legal immigration and asylum claims but the teeny tiny amount that arrives by unofficial means across the channel which is of course much more suitable to generating fearful emotional responses. This is what I object to, not managing immigration, that, obviously and if only for practical reasons must be managed but the deliberate manipulation of it to generate fear and a tribal response and demonisation of the notion in principle.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,119
|
Post by oldnat on Jan 23, 2024 18:17:14 GMT
"Ireland applies to challenge United Kingdom primary legislation" - article by David Allen Green (so always worth a read)
emptycity.substack.com/p/ireland-applies-to-challenge-united
"Ireland is targeting not merely an administrative act or practice of the United Kingdom government, but an Act of Parliament - the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023."
As DAG remarks - "Wow!"
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 23, 2024 18:20:38 GMT
Many people, in all ways of life are attracted by the "ooh, shiny!" (That, after all is what advertisers are relying on - the desire for something new even if not strictly necessary). Hence, a new political party, but populated by individuals who are already known names, may have a short term vote boost that will see the candidates (just) make it over the line, whereas staying with the old party would not. It worked for the SDP, after all. Not so much for Change UK
|
|