The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

The graffiti wasn't smart. I wouldn't have done it and I don't condone it but it said something like "fuck the Tories" and not "fuck the fallen." If it had said the latter then I'd be disgusted and maybe even a little angry but it said the former. That's why I think it's trivial in the grand scheme of things. Although I agree with Jim's stance on this issue, I am more perturbed (but only very slightly) by his penchant for accusing people of trolling - but that's only because I don't know exactly what trolling actually is and it's not something that bothers me - like the graffiti, it's trivial. No offence meant, Jim, it was just the handiest comparison I could think of.

[Professor Bear]

Through PR we've been electing murderers and religious bigots for years, CF, and Northern Ireland's no bigger a shithole than usual.  People forget that - though viewed as extremists - UKIP are just Tories who haven't mastered spin yet, and the UK would be in no bigger a hole than it is right now if UKIP had won more seats.

And Saddam Hussein was the only candidate in Iraqi elections but he still got the majority of the vote, so that means he was totally a legitimate leader and the choice of the people.  Likewise, even though the UK got only a narrow band of choices of people who were allowed to stand - and could afford to - the vote was still totally representative of the people's wishes.  That's why those protests we're talking about didn't actually happen.

[IndigoPrime]

If the minority won

It did win. The Tories were elected on 36.9% of the vote, with only a 66.1% turnout. So we have a majority government in power due to under a quarter of the electorate, and just over a third of those who could be bothered to vote. The system contrives to make it a majority because of our voting system, but 63.1% of voters did NOT vote Conservative.

Through PR we've been electing murderers and religious bigots for years, CF, and Northern Ireland's no bigger a shithole than usual.  People forget that - though viewed as extremists - UKIP are just Tories who haven't mastered spin yet, and the UK would be in no bigger a hole than it is right now if UKIP had won more seats.

Maybe, maybe not. But saying "PR doesn't work in X" doesn't mean it doesn't work. In Nordic countries, it's generally successful. Germany is probably the most successful country in Europe by most measures, and they use MMP with a threshold (5%). What we have here now, though, is a system where literally millions of people know what they don't want, and so they attempt to vote against it, rather than voting for what they do want, knowing that vote will actually count in a positive (from their standpoint) manner. We have safe seats everywhere. We have parties trying to swing a tiny handful of knife-edge constituencies and setting policy accordingly. It's Victorian and it's absurd.

[dancornwell]

With the rules as they are now. I'm not saying they're right. And maybe they should change. Been like it for years. As I said, whoever wins someone's going to be pissed off. Itll all change in 5 years, again.

[ZenArcade]

The difficulty is that it may not change. Boundry changes could mean a stasis (permanent Conservative majorities in England). The SNP have played a good hand. If the Conservatives implement what we all in our hearts feel they will, the Scottish people will be chomping at the bit for another referendum. A Labour minority administration did not suit the SNP's longer term aims. Z

[Jimmy Baker's Assistant]

Although I agree with Jim's stance on this issue, I am more perturbed (but only very slightly) by his penchant for accusing people of trolling

I've been on the end of the "you're either trolling or you're an idiot" line from Jim myself, it's not particularly nice but you get over it. I do enjoy/admire a lot of Jim's posts, and I'm not shy of lobbing the odd rhetorical grenade either, so I can't complain too much.

However, it's hardly surprising that Commando Forces (the clue's in the name) wouldn't be too impressed with the protesters who desecrated a war memorial, nor anyone attempting to justify their actions. He's clearly not trolling or an idiot, but genuinely upset about it.

[Professor Bear]

Jim is the absolute worst - remember when he attacked that passing cyclist without provocation?

More cuts announced, the bedroom tax is to be raised and applied more vigorously (so more dead mums on the way), a free vote on overturning the fox hunting ban, scrapping the human rights act, more snooping powers, goodbye torrenting tv shows, no benefits for anyone under 25 - and they aren't even back in work yet.
Get used to riots protests.

[Jim_Campbell]

He's clearly not trolling or an idiot, but genuinely upset about it.

He's entitled to be upset about it. It was a stupid, ugly thing to do that benefits their cause not one jot and upsets entirely uninvolved people for no good reason. I merely observed that I felt the outrage was disproportionate.

However, actively misrepresenting my words in order to provoke a response from me is trolling* and it's not the first time CF has done it. Either he understood my meaning and chose to to misrepresent it in order to try and aggravate me, or he didn't understand my meaning, in which case he should, perhaps, work on his reading comprehension before joining conversations with the grown-ups.

I don't see how any part of that is unreasonable or controversial.

Jim

*I've been very clear on numerous occasions that I use the term in its very specific sense of attempting to extract a reaction from someone by provocative/contrarian/intransigent posting rather than its more general usage as a synonym for a broad range of internet douchebaggery.

[sheridan]

Jim is the absolute worst - remember when he attacked that passing cyclist without provocation?

More cuts announced, the bedroom tax is to be raised and applied more vigorously (so more dead mums on the way), a free vote on overturning the fox hunting ban, scrapping the human rights act, more snooping powers, goodbye torrenting tv shows, no benefits for anyone under 25 - and they aren't even back in work yet.
Get used to riots protests.

Nah - there won't be any riots.  A riot would mean there's a loss of control of the situation by the police, which would mean the government would have to pay insurance claims.  That's why a lot of things which you might mistakenly think are riots are, in fact, disturbances.  Just so that that's clear.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

yeah...

[Theblazeuk]

When's that from?

Turnout is only a little higher than 57%...

[The Enigmatic Dr X]

No problem, Dark Jimbo, no offence taken. I know my views are a bit inflammatory at times so I never take counter-comments personally.
.
I don't have a perfect solution either, nor do I know all the answers - but I do have suggestions.
.
My main problem is with being told what to do. Take tax, for example. I'd be far more likely to pay up if taxes were voluntary, but they aren't. "Authority" demands its cut of my wages, its cut of virtually everything I buy as well. And this tax gets taken out before I get my cut of the work I've done, the money I've earned, and I can have what's left? Fuck. That.
.
If a mugger came up to me and demanded just a percentage of everything I had on me, I wouldn't consider him/her to be a decent mugger. If someone asked me for money, I'd be more likely to tip up a few quid. "Authority," like a mugger, doesn't ask, it demands - and if I say no it takes it anyway, any way it can.
.
"Authority" thinks it has the right to demand a cut of my wealth to spend however it pleases. That means that some of my money has been used to kill people. Fuck. That.
.
"Authority" never asks for anything (except my vote) but makes demands and threats. It's nothing more than Mafia-type extortion and it's illegitimate. I have no real problem with government as a concept but, if I can't say "no" to it then it can get lost. If it wants to work with me, I'm all for it. If it wants to rule me, it can fuck right off.
.
But, as I've said before, I can't change the world - I can only change my world. So that's what I'm trying to do and the first step, the hardest step, is to start saying "no."

Isn't this grossly naive? It's like something a 14 year old would put in an English essay. By that, I mean that it is too simplistic and makes a superficial argument without considering the issues it would create or leave unsolved.

Tax, and politics, is incredibly nuanced. There are, I think, very few - if any - tax or political ideals that don't grow from a kernel of decency and a proper idea. The issue is how far those ideas go before the become a corruption of what they were intended to be. In the medium term, left-right swings (I'm talking over decades) tend to correct any real issues.

Tax, at its simplest, is a levy intended to allow government to function. It is deducted from the individuals in society as part of a social contract for the order and structure that government brings. Without tax, there would be no government. Without government, there would be anarchy.

Some of the things a government does are unpalatable to some of the people. Spending on war, or defence, or on the NHS or on benefits may not be what some people want. But, sometimes it is for the greater good.

Tax, in all its forms, is intended to extract wealth from society to allow society to function. That's not mugging, where the money is stolen to benefit the criminal.

As a society, we can argue over the level of tax, and discuss what where it is spent. Political parties have differing views on this.

What we cannot do is have no tax. That idea simply erodes the validity of any other point you make.

Yes, let's discuss where the money goes. Yes, let's look at who pays tax and how much.

But you cannot get rid of tax. It's like getting rid of pencils because you don't like what someone has written.

[Karl Stephan]

My main problem is with being told what to do. Take tax, for example. I'd be far more likely to pay up if taxes were voluntary, but they aren't. "Authority" demands its cut of my wages, its cut of virtually everything I buy as well. And this tax gets taken out before I get my cut of the work I've done, the money I've earned, and I can have what's left? Fuck. That.

What happens when your boss decides he isn't going to pay you your salary that month? You take him to court, right? Sorry, the court system is provided by the government and so is legislation enforcing your basic employment rights. So you go home, only to find that your house has been burgled. Call the cops, yeah? No, sorry, that's provided by the government too. All this stuff gets paid for by tax money and there are many other examples.

[Karl Stephan]

"Authority" thinks it has the right to demand a cut of my wealth to spend however it pleases. That means that some of my money has been used to kill people. Fuck. That.

The fact that you aren't speaking German now and living* under a dictator is all thanks to your government killing people with tax money.

*assuming you're the right creed and colour!

[Karl Stephan]

He's quite insistent that the communists and fringe hippy types clean up after themselves just fine to the point they often take their rubbish with them instead of stuffing it in the bins dotted around the street (recycling enviromentalist posers!).  It's the clean-living-and-Sunday-best crowd that tend to take packed lunches and then throw everything at their arses that he's going on about.

Reading and Glasto are Christian events now?