Politics

[Andy Turnbull]

Just spinning out of the welfare thread, as it's a subject ripe for discussion.

This isn't about political allegiances as such, but about Politics as a whole.  I don't think we've ever had a time where the electorate have been as disenfranchised with the current party political system.  The continual exposing of corruption both alleged and confirmed of people in positions of power.  Now I would be inclined to say that politics probably has no more or no less crooked and corrupt people than in any other line of work, but the fact we do, whether we say or not hold these people to a higher standard than other walks of life.  Also, I imagine this sort of thing has regrettably been going on for quite some time, but there does seem to be a massive disconnect between the political parties and the populace.

For those of us north of the border, we have an administration who are a single issue party, and hell bent on getting independence, despite the fact that it's not a sensible path in the current climate, and will not see how damaging it is, and sadly still peddling the same lies about our wealth than they have done for decades. Yes there is lots of oil left in the North Sea, but nobody is going for it, because the costs involved to get it are prohibitively high.  There will be a North Sea industry for some time, but that will primarily be the safe decommissioning of the various oil rigs.  But I digress, as I could rant about that for quite some time.

I'm curious as to what the political parties can do to reengage with the people and try and reestablish any kind of connection and mandate for government.  Is the current system irrevocably broken?

Personally, I would frequently vote Liberal Democrat as their policies and aims most closely matched my own, I don't think I will ever be entirely comfortable voting for them again.  Come the next General Election, for the first time since I could vote I have no idea how I will be voting.

Andy

[Jim]

I'm in the same situation, voted Lib Dem since I was able to vote ('97 election, parents long-term Labour voters but none of us liked Blair) and bitterly regretted it after the last election. I hope they sink into utter obscurity. I have occasionally voted for more overtly socialist parties when a candidate was available, but don't really feel that's a solution where the problem is a system wide open to corruption through lobbying and which actively encourages short-term thinking, which is the last thing we need in the current economic (and physical) climate.

I quite liked HG Wells's concept of "The Samurai" in his A Modern Utopia; government by people who have to basically give up materialism permanently. There certainly has to be a better way, and I'd like for it not to have to take violence to get there. Except for Michael Gove. Lots of room for violence there.

-Jim

[Grand Moff Muffin]

It's a difficult one. I would not want a two-party system like the USA, and I support proportional representation, because it results in a Parliamentary make-up that matches the votes cast, and everyone's vote counts, BUT it will lead to more hung Parliaments, like this one, which everyone appears to hate because it leads to a coalition agreement that obviously doesn't match either party's manifesto. (Neither Conservative nor Lib Dem voters are happy with it.) Personally, I don't mind seeing more coalitions - the alternative would be Labour majorities alternating with Conservative majorities. Labour had to lose power last time around, and however much folk hate this government, a majority Conservative government would have been worse, and a minority party trying to govern alone would have led to economic meltdown. As much as I dislike the current UK Government's policies, I can't see what other government could have emerged after the results of the last general election. It would have been easy for the Lib Dems to decide they would make no compromises and stay permanently in opposition, and so maintain their pure image and keep many of the voters they have now lost, but they held their breath and went into government to stop the economy falling apart.

I can't speak for Scotland, but I don't know if the electorate is really more disenfranchised than it's ever been at a UK level. Many of the current government's policies that you and I disagree with are very popular if you take a poll. I think that whenever the party you dislike is in power you will feel disenfranchised. Would you have felt any less disenfranchised during the long Thatcher era?

There are of the order of 50 million people eligible to vote in the UK and they all have different views as to how the country should be run, all mutually contradictory. Unless you stand for election yourself, no-one has a right to expect a candidate on the ballot paper who exactly matches their views, nor a right to expect more than a 50-millionth of a say in who makes the next government. And yet everyone complains when things aren't done as they would wish. Even the few successful candidates who occasionally get to form a majority government are faced with the harsh reality of being unable to do what they promised to do, once they've been briefed by the lawyers and economists waiting to tell them how limited their choices really are.

But while they are shackled by legal, financial and political realities, those in 'power' do have many decisions they can make (some which will hurt people either way), and how they make them will depend on what party they are in - so voting does count. Individual voters don't have any power to speak of (just a 50-millionth), but the collective 50 million voters taken together as a single national will has immense power of choice on election day - far more than any politician. So everyone has a responsibility. Abstention or spoiling a ballot paper is effectively a choice to hand your share of the decision over to the other voters, and will benefit the parties you hate more at the expense of the one you hate least, so I'd strongly urge everyone against opting out of the system. BNP supporters always turn out to vote, and the only way to vote against them is a vote for someone else. Also, safe seats will remain safe seats forever if everyone who doesn't like the seat-holder thinks a vote against them would be futile and so decides to stay at home. Once every five years, the people as a whole have a chance to shift the balance of Parliament in one direction or another - including towards or away from a party that wants to change the system. You just have to accept that the view of the collective 50 million won't be the same as yours.

As for corruption, it's probably low in the UK by the standards of the past, or other countries, but our expectations are high and rightly so, and scrutiny is very, very high and rightly so. I really hope the politicians will just learn that they can't get away with anything and stop trying, as the media love it because corruption sells, so it dominates their image and tars everyone with the same brush. I care more about how well the country is being governed than whether the people doing it are fiddling their expenses, but it sours everything, and the media have more important things they should be spending their time doing, informing the public of the things that are really important which should inform their voting at the next election.

Maybe a feeling of disenfranchisement comes from us knowing more about politics now than we did before the Internet, and being more conscious of every single decision made that we don't like personally, and that may be a good thing. Ignorance is bliss.

Many people think they could do a better job than the ones in power, and at the same time think their fellow voters (who are no less qualified to run the country, or to vote, than they are) are being duped into voting the wrong people in at election time.

I guess representative democracy is disenfranchising of individuals by necessity. But is there a better system, proven to work in the real world?

As for Scotland... yes, I can understand how someone who hates the Tories but wants to stay in the UK will feel badly done by when the SNP are voted in in Scotland and the Conservatives get the most votes at a UK level. It's tough. But the good thing about democracy (as opposed to any form of dictatorship, benevolent or otherwise) is that administrations come and go.

I have a question for folk, that I don't have a clear view on myself: Is 5 years between general elections too long, too short, or about right? If it was shorter, you could kick out 'bad' governments more quickly, and the people would have more of a say, but politicians would be constantly basing decisions on short-term voter satisfaction. If it was longer, politicians could take more decisions in the country's long-term interests, without having to give people short-term benefits in order to get re-elected every 5 years, but people would have to wait longer to change the government. What do people think?

Martin

[The Doctor]

I have no time for a political system hell-bent on punishing the poor, sick and disabled and which seems determined to reduce the employment rights of police and teachers. Done with the political process. I'll never vote again. I'm done with it.

-Ralph

[Marc Graham]

Politics in most places turns into a mad rush for power with a healthy dose of over-the-top doctrines that some people chew themselves into a rabid state over.

Generally politicians will pick a big distractive item to paper over their cracks. Here in Northern Ireland its over nationality, which barely papers over the total lack of a strategy that's effective on health/unemployment/etc.

Elsewhere it varies, jingo-ism, "protect our jobs from outsiders", or hype up fear of what the other political side might do should they enter power.

I don't see much worth bothering voting about.

And for crying out loud I'm really annoyed that each council area in Northern Ireland has a totally different policy on recycling! How silly is that! Could not organise a piss up in a brewery I say!

[Philip Ayres]

So who saw the coverage of the 50,000 strong demo in London at the weekend?

No?

Once again, as per the don't show the NHS demo at the Tory conference last year, and the student protests in London nothing got reported.

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/the-bbc-needs-to-report-news-not-gossip to complain to the BBC about it's lack of coverage.

[Fortmax2020]

I have nothing against sport or the World Cup but when this goes unreported and instead we get a live overly long interview with the manager and captain of a team that didn't earn a place in the next round many days before...

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Agree up to a point. A 50,000-strong demonstration should be reported at some level, but the extent to which it should have prominence / airtime / column inches compared to other current affairs should be dependent on the extent to which the issue at the heart of the demonstration warrants prominence / airtime / column inches beyond what it is currently getting. And in which case, the number of people demonstrating is kind of irrelevant. I suppose what I mean is, the evidence for the case that the demonstrators are championing is what should make it newsworthy, not the number of people demonstrating.

If 50,000 people demonstrated for something fairly trivial or stupid, it would not deserve to be reported.

If there was something really important that no-one was demonstrating about, that would deserve to be reported.

No-one, on a ballot or in Parliament, should change their vote because of who shouts the loudest, either on the streets or in Parliament. They should vote based on their own values and the facts of the case (or the evidence, where facts are in dispute).

Trouble is where to look for objective evidence on a subject you don't know a lot about, but that's another issue altogether. More important for journalism to present the facts in an unbiased way than report how many people are protesting or writing letters about it.

Really, really big sustained protests of hundreds of thousands may show the will of the people and legitimately topple governments, but 50,000 is how many people in the UK went out to vote for the Christian Peoples Alliance in the recent European election, and is dwarfed by the million votes that the Lib Dems got, which was considered a ruinously low level of support by their standards.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/events/vote2014/eu-uk-results

So... yeah. Effects of austerity policies on vulnerable people should receive more media coverage, I'd definitely say that! But a protest... not so much.

Edit: Also, I can't help but think what could be done with 50,000 concentrated man-days of intensive collaborative flash-mob-type volunteering to clean up and transform strategically selected deprived communities on a single action day, housing estate clean-ups and what-not, to help those hit hardest by the cuts, which would be much more effective in terms of shaming the government and attracting the admiration of the national and local media than going on a march. Apologies if this offends anyone... that's just the way I've come to feel about these things.

Martin

[Philip Ayres]

I think it needs to be viewed in the lift of a number of other similar anti government protests that have also gone unreported...

And indeed the lack of any reporting of the selling off of large chunks of the NHS.

[Philip Ayres]

Rotten Boroughs 2014

www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=rotten_boroughs&1383

[Philip Ayres]

Very surprised this isn't getting more coverage

[The Doctor]

That would involve the BBC taking time out from promoting UKIP.

-Ralph

[legios]

Apr 18, 2015 10:10:49 GMT Philip Ayres said:

Very surprised this isn't getting more coverage

I'm not, the negotiations regarding this - in one form or another - have been going on for three or four years in secrecy. National Governments the world over seem reluctant to let their citizens seem the extent to which they are planning to give multinational entities protection from the consequences of national laws. I remember a time when profit was seen as a goal to aim for, not the inalienable right of any business above a certain size to the extent that they should be entitled to damages payments from governments who dare to interfere with their right to generate a profit by any means they choose. I miss those more innocent days.

Karl

[Philip Ayres]

Charles Kennedy has left us. 55, no age!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32970337

The day after the election Andu and I were commenting that most of the Lib Dems 2010 success was built on his work.

[The Doctor]

A real shame as he was one of the few frontline politicians I had respect for. Whether or not I agreed with what he was saying I at least got the impression that he gave a shit about people.

-Ralph

[Andy Turnbull]

Jun 2, 2015 7:21:58 GMT Philip Ayres said:

Charles Kennedy has left us. 55, no age!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32970337

The day after the election Andu and I were commenting that most of the Lib Dems 2010 success was built on his work.

A loss to politics and definitely played his part in making me a Lib dem voter.

A man of principles. I had hoped he could rescue the Lib Dems following Clegg's stewardship.

Andy

[The Doctor]

Utter contempt:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33025220

-Ralph

[Fortmax2020]

I love how one of them describes it as a lowly paid job.

[The Doctor]

However does he cope? At the end of the day if someone earned more before being an MP they choose to do that job knowing what the pay was before they did it so they had a choice. It is just one of those things that the highest earners in society have more options ie employment so complaining about pay cuts no ice when they have more opportunities to go for higher paid work anyway. Especially when they are currently being paid for by a public who have largely been told to take pay cuts or pay freezes at much lower salary scales for several years now.

-Ralph

[Fortmax2020]

I have very little time for people like these who have moved from high end law/finance into politics because their wealth has allowed them that option yet complain about how tough it is. They can't have not known before what the pay would be like and I don't feel the slightest bit inclined to weep with them over 'lost' money.

I know too many fine folk (including yourself) from across the range of jobs and careers who work damn harder and deserve more pay for what they contribute to society and people's lives but will never be rewarded adequately for the sacrifices they make to do so.

Also why I get annoyed at rail worker strikes currently. Already paid far far more than many others yet demanding more and holding the rest of us hostage to it. At least they are hard working though.

[Benn]

Well, that was a turn up for the books. Can't say I'm unhappy with the result though...

[The Doctor]

Let's hope we get some decent opposition in Parliament now. We shall see.

-Ralph

[Grand Moff Muffin]

Sept 12, 2015 11:31:55 GMT The Doctor said:

Let's hope we get some decent opposition in Parliament now. We shall see.

-Ralph

A decent opposition, as well as opposing, goes on to win an election and makes the other party the opposition. If he lets the Conservatives stay in power, he fails, regardless of the merits of his moral stance on things. (Though I would agree that sacrificing morals for power is also a failure.)

The first test will be the Scottish and Welsh elections next May. Labour is currently in power in Wales (with exactly half the seats) and in opposition in Scotland. Although Corbyn doesn't control the devolved wings of the Labour Party, he will have an effect on the voters. Currently unknown whether it will be a net positive or negative effect.

Unlike in England and Scotland, in Wales Labour has something to lose.

Martin

PS Corbyn needs to distance himself from any proposal to reopen the coal mines.

[Andy Turnbull]

Corbyn will have an impact in Scotland, a few of the old hardline socialists who have deserted labour for the SNP or other fringe parties will make their way back into the fold.

Andy

[Philip Ayres]

Has one of Andu's convict relatives got the top job down under?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-34245005

[legios]

I was speaking to my stepfather regarding the result this weekend. He and I have differing politics in many ways, but one thing that surprised both of us was the degree to which the BBC coverage seemed to be expressing surprise at Corbyn's success. Both of us had seen his election as fairly close to a foregone conclusion but the TV media seemed to be somewhat surprised by the result.

I'll admit that I didn't anticipate such a significant margin of victory in the first round, but I kind of figured it would be him.

Karl

[The Doctor]

Well the last time a political leader appeared from nowhere the BBC more or less created them (Farrage). There is probably much confusion that sometimes things just happen naturally. Not a to mention a few squeaky bottoms at how to report on what may be a more left-leaning opposition at a time of Charter Renewal. We live in interesting times. Suddenly politics has become interesting again.

-Ralph

[Philip Ayres]

If you've got a Postal Vote don't forget to get it in the postbox, probably today at the latest!

[browny87]

I must remember to go vote, ive been thinking of switching to postal just because I always forget and end up running down at like 7-8pm

[The Doctor]

May 3, 2016 8:53:18 GMT Philip Ayres said:

If you've got a Postal Vote don't forget to get it in the postbox, probably today at the latest!

Did it this morning. As usual it came down to selecting the least worst option rather than anyone I actually wanted to vote for and to reduce the voting share of super racist parties such as UKIP.

-Ralph