Old Bexley and Sidcup

[BoldonLad]

I wonder if it might be possible to have a system which enables proper democratic representation and decision making on behalf of the country without invoking the rather confrontational language of 'winning' and 'losing'. I find it all rather childish tbh, we ought to be able to have conversation and debate like the grown adults we are. A lot of the discourse since the last big constitutional decision we made a few years ago has been like watching my children squabbling.

No winners, no losers, just grown up decision making. Is it possible?

You are right. I can see how that would work. This forum is a glowing example.

 

[mudsticks]

I see the Conservatives have held Old Bexley and Sidcup, but, with a massive reduction in their majority. Low turnout, but, even so, it is difficult to see how this can be regarded as an endorsement of the Government. 10% swing to Labour. Perhaps, a Labour Government is on it's way at the next GE? If that happens, we will have to close this little forum down.

Well is some kind of indication that some of the electorate are paying attention some of the time yes, let's hope so.

I'm sure you're only joking about the little forum then having run its course

But if you really think the discussions on here solely come down to "Tories bad, Labour good" maybe you need to pay a bit more attention.?

I wonder if it might be possible to have a system which enables proper democratic representation and decision making on behalf of the country without invoking the rather confrontational language of 'winning' and 'losing'. I find it all rather childish tbh, we ought to be able to have conversation and debate like the grown adults we are. A lot of the discourse since the last big constitutional decision we made a few years ago has been like watching my children squabbling.

No winners, no losers, just grown up decision making. Is it possible?

Yup , I don't know of any other place where supposed serious business is done, that 'behaves' themselves as they do in parliament .

And I think that feeds into the public idea of what politics is that its an endless 'them versus us' adversarial game that requires people to be trying to trounce their opponents.

And that there always be two sides scoring points, rather than different ideas trying to find some common ground.

You go to one of the all party parliamentary groups, or engage with departmental civil servants and you find plenty of grown ups getting on with sorting out the fine detail of what needs to be done, to keep the country heading in a helpful direction .

Which is always more complicated than the unseemly brawl mentality, stirred up by the populist press.

But the populist press is owned and controlled by people who profit from maintaining the division and discord.

And that's the kind of political 'news' that the majority of people seem to consume , if they take any notice at all.

You are right. I can see how that would work. This forum is a glowing example.

But at the same time this forum provides a good outlet for people who probably didn't ought to be in politics, but who are at least a teensy bit interested and who wish to delve deeper.

 

[newfhouse]

But if you really think the discussions on here solely come down to "Tories bad, Labour good" maybe you need to pay a bit more attention.?

There are posters here that say that they don’t care what the winning team does as long as they win. I’ve seen that mostly from the Tory enablers, not so much from the progressive side, but maybe that’s a result of my own bias.

 

[BoldonLad]

...............

Which is always more complicated than the unseemly brawl mentality, stirred up by the populist press.

But the populist press is owned and controlled by people who profit from maintaining the division and discord.

And that's the kind of political 'news' that the majority of people seem to consume , if they take any notice at all.
...........
But at the same time this forum provides a good outlet for people who probably didn't ought to be in politics, but who are at least a teensy bit interested and who wish to delve deeper.

Newspaper circulation is falling, year on year. Buying and/or reading a Newspaper is not compulsory. The three Titles with the highest circulation figures are either a "freebie" (Metro), or, Tabloids (Daily Mail, Sun). Perhaps, that is what people CHOOSE to buy, or, pick up for free?

Even if we assume Newspapers have major influence, the total circulation of ALL titles is approximately 6 million, which is approximately one Newspaper per five households in UK. Hardly blanket coverage. If you take into account that many people read only the back pages, the TV listings, or the puzzle page, then coverage is even lower.

There is no "delving deeper" on this forum, just repetition of the same old thing IMHO.

 

[Bromptonaut]

My least preferred result is a poxy coalition which, in the UK at least, only ever leads to more ruddy elections.

Is that the case?

Since the war we've only had on formal coalition which lasted its full term from 2010-15. The Lib-Lab pact of the seventies perhaps came near but again, although Callaghan was felled by a confidence vote, his government was over 4 years into its term.

If we had a PR system then, albeit after a rough start while reality dawned, politicians would have to learn to manage.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Even if we assume Newspapers have major influence, the total circulation of ALL titles is approximately 6 million, which is approximately one Newspaper per five households in UK. Hardly blanket coverage.

Don't underestimate the extent to which newspapers, particularly mass market popular titles, can influence the agenda way beyond their circulation.

 

[BoldonLad]

Don't underestimate the extent to which newspapers, particularly mass market popular titles, can influence the agenda way beyond their circulation.

I could just as easily say:

Don't overestimate the extent to which newspapers, particularly mass market popular titles, can influence the agenda way beyond their circulation.

Neither of us know for certain, IMHO.

 

[mudsticks]

Newspaper circulation is falling, year on year. Buying and/or reading a Newspaper is not compulsory. The three Titles with the highest circulation figures are either a "freebie" (Metro), or, Tabloids (Daily Mail, Sun). Perhaps, that is what people CHOOSE to buy, or, pick up for free?

Even if we assume Newspapers have major influence, the total circulation of ALL titles is approximately 6 million, which is approximately one Newspaper per five households in UK. Hardly blanket coverage. If you take into account that many people read only the back pages, the TV listings, or the puzzle page, then coverage is even lower.

There is no "delving deeper" on this forum, just repetition of the same old thing IMHO.

When i say 'news'papers what i really mean is the easily accessible mainstream media, who controls that , who has the greater power to influence - if only via economic power..

I'm aware that a lot of the ' news' consumed isn't actually via folded pieces of paper - a large proportion is consumed online nowadays.

Well it is of course 'just your opinion' that there is no 'delving deeper' here - personally i've come across some ideas, and viewpoints that have broadened my perspective. In addition to yes, a lot of the same old same old.

Its also interesting to see the reaction of other members to my own considered views - it all feeds into a greater understanding.

But one wonders why you bother really, if theres really 'nothing new to see here'

 

[mudsticks]

Is that the case?

Since the war we've only had on formal coalition which lasted its full term from 2010-15. The Lib-Lab pact of the seventies perhaps came near but again, although Callaghan was felled by a confidence vote, his government was over 4 years into its term.

If we had a PR system then, albeit after a rough start while reality dawned, politicians would have to learn to manage.

And as is operated in plenty of other European countries.

If they can manage it - why not here.??

I'm sure collectively, that given time, we are bright enough to wrap our heads around it all - we really shouldn't under estimate the intelligence of the Great British Public - should we*??

* please don't feel obligated to answer that ...

 

[BoldonLad]

When i say 'news'papers what i really mean is the easily accessible mainstream media, who controls that , who has the greater power to influence - if only via economic power..

I'm aware that a lot of the ' news' consumed isn't actually via folded pieces of paper - a large proportion is consumed online nowadays.

Well it is of course 'just your opinion' that there is no 'delving deeper' here - personally i've come across some ideas, and viewpoints that have broadened my perspective. In addition to yes, a lot of the same old same old.

Its also interesting to see the reaction of other members to my own considered views - it all feeds into a greater understanding.

But one wonders why you bother really, if theres really 'nothing new to see here'

I can answer that one for you.

I like to try to ensure I have a broad a spectrum of "inputs" as possible. That is to say, to try to understand what "the public" actually think. This little microcosm adds to my daily circulation of relatives, friends and acquaintances.

If I read something which, in my opinion, has merit, yes, my opinion may be modified, it hasn't happened so far on this forum.

I am not a "blind faith" merchant, which is possibly why I am not a religious person.

 

[mudsticks]

I can answer that one for you.

I like to try to ensure I have a broad a spectrum of "inputs" as possible. That is to say, to try to understand what "the public" actually think. This little microcosm adds to my daily circulation of relatives, friends and acquaintances.

If I read something which, in my opinion, has merit, yes, my opinion may be modified, it hasn't happened so far on this forum.

I am not a "blind faith" merchant, which is possibly why I am not a religious person.

Well most of the above would apply to me too regarding not having blind faith, and wanting to broaden contact with other outlooks etc etc .

- and doubtless thats the case for many others here, as well.

Except i have had a few positions modified - or ideas broadened - or perspectives articulated in a way i hadn't come across before.

Plus knowledge expanded - i can't claim to have known about all the things that have been linked to over the weeks.

I'd find it very hard to believe that any one person here has learnt absolutely nothing - from anyone else -
Gosh!! How enormous their breadth and depth of knowledge must be already

But if i never got any kind of enlightenment - then i really wouldn't bother with this place at all.

 

[BoldonLad]

Well most of the above would apply to me too regarding not having blind faith, and wanting to broaden contact with other outlooks etc etc .

- and doubtless thats the case for many others here, as well.

Except i have had a few positions modified - or ideas broadened - or perspectives articulated in a way i hadn't come across before.

Plus knowledge expanded - i can't claim to have known about all the things that have been linked to over the weeks.

I'd find it very hard to believe that any one person here has learnt absolutely nothing - from anyone else -
Gosh!! How enormous their breadth and depth of knowledge must be already

But if i never got any kind of enlightenment - then i really wouldn't bother with this place at all.

1. I am pleased for you

2. I live in hope, the eternal optimist me

 

[mudsticks]

1. I am pleased for you

2. I live in hope, the eternal optimist me

Ahem - i seem to recall that you discovered what the precise nature of a 'wet nurse' was / is -

or had you given up listening by then ??

 

[icowden]

Under a simple PR system, Ukip would have had 80 MP's in 2016. A fairer reflection of their share of the vote certainly, but an opportunity to influence government policy that most people probably wouldn't want to see.

But that's where the fun starts. So if we look at the 2015 vote share (we didn't have an election in 2016) it would look like this:-

	% of vote	Seats
Conservative	36.8	239
Labour	30.5	198
UKIP	12.6	81
LibDem	7.9	51
SNP	4.7	31
Green	3.8	25
Dem Unionist	0.6	4
Sinn Fein	0.6	3
Plaid Cymru	0.4	2
UUP	0.4	2
SDLP	0.3	1
Others	2.1	13

326 seats are needed to control parliament. So Con could have created a coalition with UKIP but that's only 320 seats. Still 16 short.
On the other hand Labour could have created a liberal coalition with the Lib Dems, SNPs and Greens giving them 305 seats. It then comes down to trying to get the support of the minority parties Plaid, Dem Unionsts, Sinn Fein etc or the "Others". This would mean that Cons have the best chance of running a minority government but having their stupider plans curtailed - or you redo the election.

Of course this is just in a straight forward PR scenario. In reality the system adopted would be that in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales where you vote for multiple candidates and votes surplus to the "win" point get reallocated to second choices. It's impossible to predict how that might have worked out, but Cameron definitely wouldn't have got 330 seats, Brexit wouldn't have happened and we might have a better political landscape with fewer successful chancers.

 

[BoldonLad]

Ahem - i seem to recall that you discovered what the precise nature of a 'wet nurse' was / is -

or had you given up listening by then ??

You recall incorrectly. I knew the “precise nature”, but, used the term in a lazy shorthand. All of which I did explain at the time. Perhaps, you had given up listening g by then?