But no… I DEMAND THAT THE LEADER OF THE LABOUR THROWS HIS SHOES AT THE SKY TO PROTEST AGAINST CLOUDS
You mean like your very favourite Labour politician binners, the Mayor of Greater Manchester?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/starmer-labour-israel-gaza-burnham-b2438054.html
binners
Full Member
Those people were putting something on the line, not signing an internet petition then letting everyone in the world know, via social media, that they’d done soSelf-indulgent, narcissistic virtue-signalling
Posted 2 minutes ago
Dude, irony?
I love you very much, but a political party asking for people not to be killed is not....
"Self-indulgent, narcissistic virtue signalling"
It's a group of people trying to stop other people being killed.
"Those people were putting something on the line"
You're a socialist, right?
You've been a union rep?
You've stood up against ****s?
You've defended others against violence because of their race, colour religion or right to work?
You've actively defended your town against the NF or BNP?
Or are you just someone who likes to define these things as "virtue signalling?"
Choose your battles
With everything going on at the moment in this country, members of the Labour Party and MPs self-destructing the party for the sake of something that will have absolutely zero impact is frankly insane
A bizarre hill to choose to die on, given that the only impact it will have is a nice little boost for the Tory party
that will have absolutely zero impact
That's your claim which you make without providing any evidence. Plenty of political pundits and experts on the Middle East believe the opposite.
It is widely accepted that as global public opinion continues to grow in opposition to the slaughter of men, women, and children, it will put pressure on Netanyahu as he becomes evermore aware that western governments will eventually stop supporting him due to pressure from their voters.
Current US support for Israel is causing them massive damage in the region, and it is doing massive political damage to Joe Biden back home. What the soon-to-be UK PM says concerning a ceasefire has the potential to have a significant impact on both the US president and Israeli prime minister.
is a nice little boost for the Tory party
What on earth are you talking about? 75% of UK voters support a ceasefire.
They’re now like the Taliban
I've never read such nonsense. The Taliban position themselves as responding to genuine and widespread concerns, have no interest in the Israeli-Gazan war, and are now in government effecting their policy platform. They're not like the UK left at all.
I'd recommend everyone reads this, but especially those who feel that their violence is 'justified'
https://unherd.com/2023/10/the-tyranny-of-pathological-kindness/
binners
Full Member
Choose your battles
I chose my battles years ago.
And I refuse to compromise.
I will not watch my party stand by and justify children being murdered.
Equally, I will not endorse terrorism.
I am a socialist.
I have studied and questioned my beliefs over many years and believe that democratic socialism is the best outcome we can possibly strive to achieve.
I have no idea what you believe.
I have watched you denegrate every attempt at liberal socialism that has been proposed.
And yet, you call youself a socialist.
Starmer caused for a ‘humanitarian pause’.
The ‘ceasefire’ agreed is for 4 days, at which point the Israelis will bomb the living shut out of Gaza again
Can you tell me what the difference is? Because I’m struggling to see it as anything other than semantics.
Enough for ‘The Left’ to soil themselves in righteous indignation though, apparently
It’s almost as if they were trying to manufacture a reason to have a very public hissy fit to demonstrate their own righteousness
[MODS] Keep on topic please [\MODS]
Can you tell me what the difference is? Because I’m struggling to see it as anything other than semantics.
Yeah you're not stupid enough to believe that people calling for a ceasefire were asking a 4 day ceasefire.
The temporary ceasefire which Israel has agreed to is very clearly not the same ceasefire called by people such as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, as well you know.
[MODS] Keep on topic please [\MODS]
If we are all to be charitable...
People were asking for a humanitarian ceasefire before the means for a political ceasefire were in place.
It could be argued that an humanitarian ceasefire on its own could never have been achieved, because the conditions for cessation were always going to be dependant on political factors. Hamas took hostages to this particular fortune let's not forget.
I have nothing else.
[MOD] Seriously, keep to the thread topic or we’ll closed it. [/MOD]
I will not watch my party stand by
seems like they are not your party, if you have to think like that.
Which countries are getting things right (not far right)at the moment?
The Scandinavian countries seem to come out as the happiest places to live and that should be a primary measure of a country as the majority of people living happily is a good thing. The Scandinavian countries also manage to keep out of things pretty much and don't see themselves as some force on the world stage as maybe they don't really see that as important?
Never lived in any of the countries so haven't got a clue what it is really like, grass is greener etc,. but maybe the culture is just better meaning that as people grow up they grow up in that culture whereas in the UK for example any growing up recently is not off to a good start are they.
And yet, you call youself a socialist.
Every time binners repeats one of his pathetic rants about lefties, all I hear is my dad, a miserable old reactionary white man ranting at the world from his armchair with 100% confidence that he is right and everyone else is wrong. It’s a good reminder of what not to be.
Anyway back on topic. Seems like Wilders will struggle to form a govt. The test for the liberals now is whether they can change their tune and offer something different that people will vote for, otherwise he’ll be back next time and will win outright.
otherwise he’ll be back next time and will win outright.
At what point though, under normal democratic elections where each party is free to offer what they think the public want, and that public consistently votes for far-right candidates; do you say, Oh, OK..? I mean If Wilders can't form a govt, then eventually more elections presumably? I think the The Netherlands has been here before hasn't it, with something like 250 days without a functioning govt?
I mean at what point, if you're offering what you'd want as a left-wing party, and folks still vote for anti-immigration policies and so on, do you give folks what they want? (at the extreme; more or less a white ethno-state, like I dunno; Switzerland*?)
*Only slightly joking...
We have to define what hard right is.
I think what we are seeing now is ant immigration populism. IMO that is financed in the background by "oligarchs" and corporations as a distraction to move economics and legislation to their advantage. Largely that is just chipping away at the post war social consensus for most European countries, some are more along the path that others (the UK) but the use misdirection and direction of travel is impacting all countries. Some of the major political parties are very much embedded into the economic changes (the tories) others are happy to go along for the racist ride in order to achieve power without thought and/or concern for the long term impacts.
Countries like Sweden are seeing a big rise in the anti immigration rhetoric, but they are lagging way behind other countries in destroying the post war social consensus.
We have to define what hard right is.
Can we define it as this?
others are happy to go along for the racist ride in order to achieve power without thought and/or concern for the long term impacts.
Right, so here's @dazh saying why can't I get a Dr appt? And the truth of that is; becasue they're aren't enough doctors. There's nothing a normal functioning (right or left) govt can do about that in the short term, it's a long term - 8 or more years or so policy decision that you'd have to hope that the next govt that comes along doesn't **** about with... Populists (of either stripe) can just say "40 new hospitals" and count the votes...
How do we - as a liberal democracy remember; do the "right" things without starting down the line of some draconian legislation? How do you stop the malign influence say of billionaires, corporates and so on, without being (rightly you could argue) accused of being exclusive to preserve "our preferred or chosen" form of government?
I mean at what point do you say to folks "OK, you asked for this, here it is.."
Didn’t Sweden veer to the right in their last election?
Its been moving rightwards for a while but yes there was a surge in hard right votes.
Yes, Sverige Demokratarna got a hefty (and concerning) chunk of the votes and the Moderatarna went into coalition with them, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals to form the current government. All these partes are right-of-centre in varying degrees. The former leading party (Social Democrats) were part of the left-of-centre block (includes Vänsterpartiet, Centerpartiet, Miljöpartiet) and were the largest single block in the last election, but the right-leaning block formed a larger coalition.
M (the Moderates and the PM's party) have been dealing with the fallout from the pandemic and the global situation and SD seems content to just work behind the scenes, influencing things without really taking responsibility for them, despite them being a big party, certainly more than KD ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Sweden#Present_Cabinet). That's a smart move on their part, because they get to form policy based on _not_ supporting Ulf, but letting him take the blame when things don't go well. BUTT... I do think that their lack of ability to be visible in changing things will see them lose support in the next election.
So yes, the extreme right has risen in Sweden, but coalition means that it can't do all of the things that it wants to. That's a good thing.
I mean at what point, if you’re offering what you’d want as a left-wing party, and folks still vote for anti-immigration policies and so on, do you give folks what they want?
Well I guess the starting point is at least having a go at fixing things properly and offering voters an alternative to the dysfunctional status quo before giving in to their base white supremacist instincts. Are we really saying there's no way for the labour party (because lets face it, they're the only option) to win an election on a prospectus of public investment, wealth redistribution and medium-long term decisions to fix things like the NHS?
I don't want to go back to Corbyn, but look at what happened in 2017. Despite the fact that he was universally unpopular and had the entire media and political establishment against him (on both sides of the political spectrum), lots of people still voted for the policies he was putting forward and the labour party massively increased it's vote. It must surely be possible for the labour party to find a leader who can put forward those sort of policies without all the baggage that Corbyn came with?
Sure, but then at the same time, on an election (if we're using 2017) based on Brexit, global security, social care and a possible 2nd Scottish Independence vote, more people still voted for May's Tories. Labour absolutely raised it vote under Corbyn, undeniable, it is to his credit. But it still wasn't what the public (largely) wanted.
And since that vote, a high water mark for us on the left, its arguably gone down hill ever since and the world has changed radically (and I mean that in both senses). It comes back to basics doesn't it? A functioning democracy needs everyone to play along*, and its increasingly evident that the 'forces of the right' don't want to, or don't feel like they have to, anymore.
* Take a free press for instance - Its either free or its not, you can't really legislate to stop opinions you don't like (obviously), so you hope that everyone sees the value that a liberal democracy brings. If you got folks who actively don't want to go along with that. It's the paradox of liberal democracy that they not only hold within them the seeds of the own destruction, they actively promote it.
It's depressing yet all too predictable that some would choose to use a discussion about the far right, to attack the left, or what they perceive as being the left. This itself is a symptom of social conditioning as engineered by the ruling elites, through mainstream media, political propaganda etc. It is so successful that individuals themselves are often completely unaware that they are being manipulated. Tired old out of date tropes about 'lefties' are now combined with newer right wing reactionism against 'wokeism'. Almost as though people are acting according to a script, although this isn't fiction. But it's always important to challenge the views, rather than the individuals voicing them. The truth is that the actions of the real left are seldom celebrated or even acknowledged via conventional media channels, as this would undermine the false narrative being peddled. But it's 'woke lefties' who have successfully prevented the Rwanda deportations from going ahead, it's 'woke lefties' who run food banks, it's 'woke lefties' who will actively challenge and form resistance against far-right hate mobs trying to evict asylum seekers from their hostels, it's 'woke lefties' who travel to war-torn areas to give aid to those needing it. But then you have resentful, bitter old men sat on internet forums denouncing such as 'virtue signalling'. I think it's far more useful to look at that bitter resentment, to the underlying lack of individual fulfilment, lack of self-esteem and a lack of self-respect, to really start to understand where such displaced anger comes from. The insecure need a scapegoat for their own failings. And along come the right to create a convenient target for their ire. So they are focussed not on the architects of their dissatisfaction, but at the very people who actually want the world to be better for all.
Divide et impera.
What are we going to do about it?
Well, if Labour aren't the answer (based on folks' stated or implied distaste/disagreement/dislike etc of leadership, policy, stance, direction, rhetoric etc), maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need. 🤷🏼♂️
So some sort of global type conflict over the next decade
We might not 'return' from this one should it happen. I genuinely never believed we'd ever see a world war again. I do worry we are edging closer and closer.
It may or may not become excellent polemic, I didn't get past:
some would choose to use a discussion about the far right, to attack the left, or what they perceive as being the left. This itself is a symptom of social conditioning
So anyone who disagrees does so as a result of their social conditioning? How about what you think? Is that also socially conditioned? If not where do you live? If you are the same as everyone else, what's even the point of these trite observations?
Well, if Labour aren’t the answer (based on folks’ stated or implied distaste/disagreement/dislike etc of leadership, policy, stance, direction, rhetoric etc), maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need. 🤷🏼♂️
you'll get more tory govts if you abandon labour. Still, better than having to compromise eh?
maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need.
There only seems to be room for a certain number of parties (2?) as all the others are just fringe parties. We can't really have 100 different parties to appeal to all the political differences people have as none of the parties would actually get anywhere would they?
Anyone who wants the old Labour policies can vote Green but they don't seem to be doing that, why is that?
"it’s ‘woke lefties’ who run food banks"
Not in my experience. It's middle-aged mums who don't like seeing others go hungry. The food bank I help out at is nearly all women, and I doubt if many of them would know what 'woke' meant.
When it comes to actually doing something that is of real, tangible, unarguable good it nearly always seems to be middle-aged mums doing it.
... and Christians. The homeless shelter I volunteer at is run by Christians. I don't agree with them about much, but they do get out there.
Well, if Labour aren’t the answer (based on folks’ stated or implied distaste/disagreement/dislike etc of leadership, policy, stance, direction, rhetoric etc), maybe we need a new party to represent the interests that people want/need. 🤷🏼♂️
I think this is somehow inevitable; nature abhors a vacuum, and there's a huge gaping hole on the left of British politics right now. But it all basically comes down to marketing and image; the right has successfully created a piñata out of the traditional left, so a new approach is needed, that won't put people off voting for actual decent socially beneficial policies and ideals. I've personally long felt that the problem with politics is that it's far to full of politicians, rather than people who have actual experience of real life from a working perspective, so we need bus drivers, shop workers, doctors, nurses, teachers, carers, engineers, builders, to work together to form policy, rather than stuffed suits and toffs with a degree in PPE from Oxbridge. People from all walks of life, with a range of diverse experiences. This I believe can only come about from strong, effective work and social unions; not the closed shop of yesteryear, but actual democratic organisations that give ordinary people agency and a voice. But politics needs to change radically for that to happen at all, if ever, and I can't see that happening any time soon. But no change can come unless people want it, and fight for it. Are people willing to fight for it, is the real question.
you’ll get more tory govts if you abandon labour.
Unlikely as that would require the Tories to be in power permanently. The same one party constantly in power just doesn't happen in any liberal democracy - people are simply never that happy with their governments.
on an election (if we’re using 2017) based on Brexit, global security, social care and a possible 2nd Scottish Independence vote, more people still voted for May’s Tories.
They may have voted for May's tories, but it still changed things. As Ernie often points out, the tories abandoned the narrative of austerity (even if they didn't exactly turn on the spending taps, they are tories after all) in the wake of 2017. Even though labour didn't win power, the support they gained forced the tories to change tack. The tragedy of 2017 was that they came so close, and the actions of people in the labour party itself tipped the balance between being in govt or not.
Maybe you're right though, maybe 2017 was the high water mark. Doesn't mean they should stop trying though, and Starmer's labour party looks very much like a party that doesn't want to do too much. At best it looks like a party that wants to slow the decline rather than actually reversing it.
It may or may not become excellent polemic, I didn’t get past:
Which is a shame.
So anyone who disagrees does so as a result of their social conditioning? How about what you think? Is that also socially conditioned?
Had you continued to read, you'd have understood the answer to this.
“it’s ‘woke lefties’ who run food banks”
Not in my experience. It’s middle-aged mums who don’t like seeing others go hungry. The food bank I help out at is nearly all women, and I doubt if many of them would know what ‘woke’ meant.
When it comes to actually doing something that is of real, tangible, unarguable good it nearly always seems to be middle-aged mums doing it.
… and Christians. The homeless shelter I volunteer at is run by Christians. I don’t agree with them about much, but they do get out there
Sure, but this is just your own individual experience, and I was using this as an example of what the right perceive to be 'woke', and it is things like food banks. And my personal experience of such is that it is people who would be considered (by some people on her at least) to be 'woke lefties', who work at the food banks I am aware of. If we work on the premise that 'woke lefty' is right wing shorthand for 'someone who cares about others', that is.
And my personal experience of such is that it is people who would be considered (by some people on her at least) to be ‘woke lefties’, who work at the food banks
Maybe ask binners? He's an expert on woke lefties, never stops talking about them. 😂
Haha brownperson, I think our definitions are different. I think a 'lefty' could be described as 'someone who cares about others', while a 'woke lefty' is someone who likes to signal to others how great and caring they are without actually doing much about it.
I’ve personally long felt that the problem with politics is that it’s far to full of politicians, rather than people who have actual experience of real life from a working perspective
Yes this is a good point. Perhaps we need rules about who can become a politician? Or at extremis who can vote? I've long though that it would be worth exploring whether you either exchange participation in the democratic process for money. You can have either, but not both. The logic being that after a certain value in the bank, you're pretty isolated, so you don't get a say in how the rest of us arrange things.
Haha brownperson, I think our definitions are different. I think a ‘lefty’ could be described as ‘someone who cares about others’, while a ‘woke lefty’ is someone who likes to signal to others how great and caring they are without actually doing much about it.
The problem with such terms is that there is often no real consensus on what they mean (chiefly because they are nonsense to begin with), so get bandied about by people trying to score points of win an argument. But my point was that your 'middle aged mum' or 'Christian' could be described by some as being 'woke lefties', such is the vague uselessness of the term. It all depends of the particular perspective and stance of the abuser.
My wife said 'stop being so woke!' this morning, when I questioned the use of feta cheese in a salad that is meant to be ok for any potential vegans who may be attending the event we are going to tonight. What can you do?
Yes this is a good point. Perhaps we need rules about who can become a politician?
Absolutely. At the very least we should have a rule that bars people from becoming politicians until they've done something else for a decent period of time. It's bonkers that we have 20 or 30-something career politicians in parliament who have never been employed in a real job outside of politics. 10 years of experience in either a salaried job(s), self employment or working in the voluntary sector would be my prerequisite.
Yes this is a good point. Perhaps we need rules about who can become a politician? Or at extremis who can vote? I’ve long though that it would be worth exploring whether you either exchange participation in the democratic process for money. You can have either, but not both. The logic being that after a certain value in the bank, you’re pretty isolated, so you don’t get a say in how the rest of us arrange things.
Yes, that's interesting. But I fear you'd end up with a lot of individually wealthy, yet miserable and politically apathetic people. But I do like the ethos of that. Greed vs agency.
I think that government departments charged with running various aspects of our society, should be led by people who actually know what they're doing, because they have experience of that particular sector, infrastructure etc. So, why not put nurses and doctors in charge of health? Teachers in charge of education? And bus drivers in charge of transport? And then when elected politicians come to tell them what to do, they can tell them to get lost, because they're the ones with actual knowledge. Instead of farcical situations of say a minister for transport who's never used public transport in their life, of the dept of health being run by someone barely capable of administering an aspirin to themselves. Or anything being run by tories, basically.
Absolutely. At the very least we should have a rule that bars people from becoming politicians until they’ve done something else for a decent period of time. It’s bonkers that we have 20 or 30-something career politicians in parliament who have never been employed in a real job outside of politics. 10 years of experience in either a salaried job, self employment or working in the voluntary sector would be my prerequisite.
You got in before me. Totally this. 100%.
Firstly, how about a reform away from FPTP - Aim for a scheme/system where proportional representation ensures that there can be no one ruling party. Also coalitions are not permitted to gain control. The aim is to get a system that any policy to be implemented NEEDS cross party support and compromise?
Secondly, and most controversially, set the above up and abolish the 5 year max term; have a term be a decade. Gives a larger runway to achieve more longer term, strategic ambitions.
Or just get me to run the shop, I'll be fairly benevolent once I've dealt with 'my list' 😎
I think that government departments charged with running various aspects of our society, should be led by people who actually know what they’re doing
God, yes! 100% There's something like 4 or 5 GPs in the Tory party currently, so it's obvious that the SoS for health is a barrister.
You would rather Liam Fox?
No not really, but as @brownperson suggests at the very least he understands in which end the aspirin goes. It was a commentary on the fact that both Labour and the Tories do this (appoint folks who're loyal as opposed to capable) and them shuffle them about after 2 years. It should be a requirement that the folks running Whitehall depts. are at least vaguely familiar with the subject.
There’s something like 4 or 5 GPs in the Tory party currently, so it’s obvious that the SoS for health is a barrister.
Why would being a gp make you competent at running the NHS? It gives you expertise in an area of it but nothing more by default. Even within that area you might just be good at doing that job vs management and organising which is what is needed higher up.
Arguably those career politicans should be the ones most suited and skilled for the roles. If you start off working for an mp in your 20s then you will be learning the ropes by helping them.
at the very least he understands in which end the aspirin goes.
Which probably makes him more dangerous......."Trust me, I'm a doctor"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25574096
Liam Fox calls for end to protection of NHS spending
It may or may not become excellent polemic, I didn’t get past: "So anyone who disagrees does so as a result of their social conditioning? How about what you think? Is that also socially conditioned?"
Which is a shame.
Had you continued to read, you’d have understood the answer to this.
No you didn't answer the point on whether it's just other people who are socially conditioned and lack your clarity of vision (if not expression - I suggest you use paragraphs if you want to be more comprehensible.)
The aim is to get a system that any policy to be implemented NEEDS cross party support and compromise?
See my previous comments. Nothing would ever get done or change, politics would be reduced to horse-trading between parties which cuts out the electorate. If you want to operate a democracy in an undemocratic way, that's the way to do it.
I think there's a little misunderstanding of what I meant. Which was rather than having a potentially clueless politician running a government department, the people doing the actual thinking and planning are those who've got real world experience. So the politician isn't really in charge of that department, more of a figure head. But they'd still ultimately be answerable, so they'd have a vested interest in the department running well, so would need to listen to those who have knowledge and experience. These would be people in a permanent position, not a department that is shuffled around every few years, causing disruption and chaos.
Which probably makes him more dangerous…….<em style="box-sizing: border-box; --tw-translate-x: 0; --tw-translate-y: 0; --tw-rotate: 0; --tw-skew-x: 0; --tw-skew-y: 0; --tw-scale-x: 1; --tw-scale-y: 1; --tw-scroll-snap-strictness: proximity; --tw-ring-offset-width: 0px; --tw-ring-offset-color: #fff; --tw-ring-color: rgb(59 130 246 / 0.5); --tw-ring-offset-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-ring-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow: 0 0 #0000; --tw-shadow-colored: 0 0 #0000; caret-color: #000000; color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji';">“Trust me, I’m a doctor”
Good point. Suella Braverman is a barrister, a KC no less, and she tried breaking the law. Which makes it all the more important that people working in such depts are actually in charge of what's going on, not the politician.
I think that government departments charged with running various aspects of our society, should be led by people who actually know what they’re doing
I was doing a job a couple of weeks ago and Chris Whitty was talking about how in developing countries the minister is nearly always someone from a relevant profession. He didn't necessarily say it was always better in his experience of dealing with departments but he noted that in this country he'd be talking to a ministers staff while in African countries as an example he'd much more likely be talking directly to the minister directly
No you didn’t answer the point on whether it’s just other people who are socially conditioned and lack your clarity of vision (if not expression – I suggest you use paragraphs if you want to be more comprehensible.)
But you've already stated that you didn't read past part of the second paragraph. So how can you know what the rest of my post said?
politics would be reduced to horse-trading between parties which cuts out the electorate.
I've never understood fully why something say like providing clean water and taking away the sewage should end up as a political football (well clearly, I do, it's the money, stupid) but at the same time, there's a point at which once you've decided to provide a service to the public it moves away from being messed around with surely? Or rather; it should do in any sensible situation.
he’d much more likely be talking directly to the minister directly
And and the very least presumably has enough experience to know whether he's being fed a line? And you can hold him responsible
I’ve never understood fully why something say like providing clean water and taking away the sewage should end up as a political football
TBH on the subject of national infrastructure I'm quite happy to leave the decisions in the hands of the experts. All the government needs to do is set the overrall parameters (eg universal medical care free at the point of use), provide the money and hold those spending it to account. If the experts say the NHS, water or energy etc are better off being run by non-govt providers (preferably for no profit) then fine, and then if they fail, get some new people to run them. There really shouldn't be much politics about how they are run, the politics should mostly be about whether we want/need these things or not.
So how can you know what the rest of my post said?
Was it a good answer? 😁
So how can you know what the rest of my post said?
Was it a good answer? 😁
There really shouldn’t be much politics about how they are run, the politics should mostly be about whether we want/need these things or not.
Yes, once we decided that say; roads are a good thing - they should at least have a repair budget priced in...
I think there’s a little misunderstanding of what I meant. Which was rather than having a potentially clueless politician running a government department, the people doing the actual thinking and planning are those who’ve got real world experience
Ok so thats really the civil servants. The politician gives the direction but its the civil servants who implement. One thing cummings did get support from non nutters on is the civil service does seem to prefer a broad but narrow depth of knowledge shifting its promotion track employees around departments vs keeping people in a particular department to become really good at it.
Good point. Suella Braverman is a barrister, a KC no less
She got that (as did several politicians before her) due to being appointed to the position of attorney general rather than from her work as a lawyer.
TBH on the subject of national infrastructure I’m quite happy to leave the decisions in the hands of the experts.
Which experts are you going to ask?
Which experts are you going to ask?
Well not MPs that's for certain. It's pretty obvious. MPs don't have the knowledge or experience to make decisions on how the NHS should be operated (as an example), medical professionals, senior managers and other experts do, so get them to decide the best way of running it. Same goes for energy generation, water, railways, roads etc. The key thing is ensuring that anyone involved in making the decisions doesn't have a conflict of interest.
The role of MPs should be limited to talking to their constituents and other stakeholders and representing their views on whether we should have these things.
Couple of issues with that.
Firstly you mention previously the politicians should be holding them to account but that seems to have disappeared here.
Secondly finding someone without a conflict of interest would be tricky. All those senior managers etc would likely be in line for a rather big paycheck if they get to operate it standalone. As happened with all those privatised industries.
You could get the management consultants in but then you have the problem of lack of expertise and a rather large conflict of interest.
People working in the field are likely to be good at their job but not necessarily at anything outside of that. A gp would likely be able to comment effectively on how gp surgeries can be improved but not on how to run a hospital.
Firstly you mention previously the politicians should be holding them to account but that seems to have disappeared here.
Nope. In the NHS example the politicians hold those running the NHS to account for something (eg waiting lists). Then the professionals would come back and tell the politicians why waiting lists are worse and what needs to happen to resolve the problem. The politicians then need to either provide the resources and/or take further action somewhere else in govt (eg train more doctors, allow foreign doctors to come in). If they refuse to implement the recommendations of the experts then they can't complain about worsening waiting lists. That's the point at which the waiting lists become a political problem, but the politicians shouldn't be questioning why the waiting lists are getting worse against the advice of the experts on the ground.
Which experts are you going to ask?
Well not MPs that’s for certain.
Good example. So if the experts say the best way to maximise benefit to the national economy is to focus on infrastructure in the south east, then that becomes policy? Alternatively if they're to be guided to do what's best to help equalise quality of life for people across the whole country, who does that guiding? I'd suggest that people need representation to be able to influence policy decisions. Same very much applies in health and social care (though the relevant government department does have a permanent secretary level chief medical officer, and director general level chief scientific advisor).
Regardless of science/expertise you're still going to have to make decisions on what to do. The COVID enquiry is giving plentiful examples, at risk of derail
A view that has been reflected by many people I've talked to about politicians (who they have worked closely with) in charge of functions is that the best ones are generally those that don't come with preconceived ideas, and as such are more willing to listen to the civil servants.
As such I am much less keen on suggesting SoS need to have experience in the area they are in charge of, because it's evident from others that this can actively hinder their ability to be objective.
My take is that what makes a good minister / SoS is the personality, and lack of preconceived ideas or agenda other than to improve the function / service provided.
while we squabble the far right have been busy in Ireland
my cousins were telling me about this - anti-immigrant sentiment in Ireland (of all places) a few weeks ago, at the time I was bemused, now less so
Squabbling among anti-racists has never been an issue when comes to challenging the far-right in the streets of the UK.
In fact it is the one thing that unites progressive people more than anything else, going back to the 1930s.....black shirts, the NF, the EDL, always unites the opposition to racism.
I can't comment on Ireland although I assume the same is true there.
kerley
Free MemberThere only seems to be room for a certain number of parties (2?) as all the others are just fringe parties. We can’t really have 100 different parties to appeal to all the political differences people have as none of the parties would actually get anywhere would they?
Anyone who wants the old Labour policies can vote Green but they don’t seem to be doing that, why is that?
FPTP of course. Why don't people vote green? Because we have a political system that pretends that 43.6% is a "landslide majority" while 32.1% is a "crushing humiliating defeat", that a 1.2% per cent swing can give you 48 seats, and that the correct outcome from those results is that 43.6% of votes gives 56% of seats while for another party 32.1% of votes gives 31% of seats and for the 3rd biggest party 11.6% of votes gives 1.7% of seats.
But here we are in a thread acting like PR is weird.
The greens? By all means vote for em but in the last election, they got 2.6% of the vote and therefore naturally got .2% of the MPs, as is right and proper under fptp. If you personally have about a million votes it might make a real difference.
FPTP of course. Why don’t people vote green?
Just asked my daughter who she would vote for when the election comes and she said she wanted to vote green but there's no point because they won't get in so she'll vote labour instead even though she doesn't like them. Quite depressing on the surface but lets be honest, with PR yes we'd end up with lots more green MPs, but we'd also get loads of far right reform/UKIP MPs, and probably more than the number of greens. And the main two parties are hardly going to give much away in coalition negotiations (see Scotland and/or the 2010 election), so the end result is much the same as we have today but with a load of unhinged rightwing fascists in parliament with greater leverage to spread their poison. If someone can propose a model of PR which doesn't dilute decision making and empower the far right then I'll vote for it, otherwise as you were.
With PP no ones feels like their vote is wasted in a GE.
Therefore they don't have to go and and do stupid shit like voting for Brexit.
Brexit was also a perfect example of the problem with governments being able to 'get stuff done'. If their main concern is appealing to a couple of hundred thousand swing voters in key seats rather than the other 45 million voters then stupid stuff ends up getting done.
Believe it or not, stuff gets done in PP countries as well. The difference is, it isn't done on a whim and can only be moved forward once there is general agreement and compromises have been made.
So stuff like cancelling HS2 based on the whims of a single moron tends not to happen.
I’ve had an interesting conversation with a far right support this evening, I use conversation loosely. He tells me that our vets fought for the wrong side, that this country is ruined because of that and he hopes that nazis rise again. Unfortunately he deleted his posts before I could screenshot them, normal poppy shagger but worryingly still a serving Para.
There was quite a bit of support for the nazis in Ireland, cos they were sticking it to the UK (as well as a lot of volunteers to fight for the allies). And there was still a healthy population of neo and old school nazi crackers there in the early 2000s when I lived there. Quite a nasty undercurrent of racism toward the African immigrants that were starting to land over there too.
Not really any worse than here or elsewhere but Ireland’s certainly not immune to the problem
dazh
Full MemberAnd the main two parties are hardly going to give much away in coalition negotiations (see Scotland and/or the 2010 election), so the end result is much the same as we have today but with a load of unhinged rightwing fascists in parliament with greater leverage to spread their poison.
This is just contradictory tbh. Do the smaller groups have leverage or not?
I’ve never understood fully why something say like providing clean water and taking away the sewage should end up as a political football<br /><br />
Money. It’s all about the money.
Money. It’s all about the money.
Which is pretty daft because the money for all this stuff is very easy to acquire. If the govt wants to spend money on something all it has to do is decide to do it.
This is just contradictory tbh. Do the smaller groups have leverage or not?
Not contradictory at all. The far right have an inbuilt advantage because as long as poverty and inequality exist people will look to blame easy targets. We’ve all done it. Can you honestly say you’ve never felt aggrieved at what others have f you think they haven’t deserved it?
You said "the main two parties are hardly going to give much away in coalition negotiations" and then straight away said that right wingers would have leverage. Pretty clear that this doesn't make sense. PR does give more power/voice to smaller groups than FPTP, in fact that's one of the great strengths, but it doesn't do this only for some small groups.
At some point you have to decide if you like democracy or not. If you do, then yes it gives a voice to people you wish had none. It's not a bug, it's a feature. But it also leads to a fundamental bias towards reasonableness, as is nicely highlighted here- and not because of a bias in the system but because it's more representative of actual human interaction. It's possible for total shitehawks to get a decent share of the vote or even the single biggest share, but it's also hard for them to work with others.
You think the greens are stronger than the far right wing?
By ‘leverage’ I meant the ability to influence the views of the voting public. The far right have always been better at that than the greens.
