Heartland

If this works, it'll be a poll... if it doesn't, it'll be a mess. But at least I don't have the postal vote problem!

PS in deference to one of my other posts, I won't leave anyone in suspense - I voted for revolution in the above poll - as if you hadn't guessed - the only person to have done so ATM.

I say a botch.

The system is built around an underlying flaw (FPTP) which needs to be addressed if we are to become a truly participatory democracy.

Botch.

andymackem wrote:The system is built around an underlying flaw (FPTP) which needs to be addressed if we are to become a truly participatory democracy.

As "first past the post" will only ever elect one of the two biggest parties to government, neither party has much incentive to change the system.

some Belgian politician whose name I've long forgotten wrote:Until they come up with a better system, I'll be a democrat

Which basically says it all...

Still I think your British system isn't worth as much as continental democracy due to the fact that you give a seat in the parliament to the party that has the most votes, instead of dividing seats under all parties based on how many percent of the votes they did collect...

Just noticed that option 1 says 'edmonstration'. I can't be arsed to do anything about it. You know what it means.

A botch. There are really good arguments based on equality and fairness for changing the system. The trouble is, changing the electoral system doesn't guarantee a healthy party system. I THINK P.R. (or at least STV) would work fairly well in the current UK party system, but there are several potential problems with it, which are well known:

It gives incentives to parties to divide - and this is easy to imagine (pro/anti Europe tories, old and new labour...etc). Many countries with PR (such as Italy) are plagued by this problem - parties split over trivial issues, rejoin and redivide, only to make electoral pacts later on whilst still nominally separate parties. As a result, although you as a voter can vote for who you like, all of the major 'politics' takes place BETWEEN PARTIES, not between parties and voters, and you end up with a political agenda that is just as unresponsive to voters than the FPTP alternative. Many of these small parties are constantly in government, even if they're not that popular, and can be very hard to get rid of. A political culture of 'compromise' can develop within parliament that sounds very mature, but which can degenerate into corrupt mutual backscratching. With a sound, 'mature' party system it can work fairly well (as in Germany, possibly). With a backbiting party system and an infantile press, fragmentation and inertia can develop instead. The question is, which do we have?

Hmmm, many people on these forums know my views on the matter: scrap the lot. The whole question of the 'corrupt centre' is particularly apposite for anyone who's had to live under a Lib-Dem-coalition (with whom? Hey, it DOESN'T MATTER to the Lib-Dems! THAT'S how democratic they are, the hypocritical political whores!)

The question of 'political choice' seems to me to boil down to: Labour or Tories? Aids or cancer? Car-crash or stabbing? Drowning or burning? Crushed or suffocated? Blood-loss or hypothermia?

Take your pick. No, you have to, it's been made COMPULSORY.

PS not so sure Germany doesn't suffer from the same thing. A lot of people seem pissed of with the so-called-red-so-called-Green coalition, which seems as sunk in sleaze as any mafioso-bribe-taking Italian legislator you could name (Craxi! Craxi! I'm sorry, I have a cold).

Botch.

Hoped the Lib Dems would do better, in the wake of all the Iraq business and everyone else's general incompetence.

Still got off my arse and voted though.

The sooner you all just come to your senses and hand me

ABSOLUTE POWER

the better for everyone.

boudicca wrote:Botch.

Hoped the Lib Dems would do better, in the wake of all the Iraq business and everyone else's general incompetence.

Still got off my arse and voted though.

Are you of the opinion that the Lib-Dems opposed the war, then?

Red Orc wrote: Are you of the opinion that the Lib-Dems opposed the war, then?

Sorry have I missed something?

Controversial...

I take it you mean you thought they were opposed.

If so, sorry to disappoint.

The Lib-Dem position was:
1 - 'it is wrong for Britain and America to bomb Iraq. But it's alright if FRANCE DOES IT TOO.'
2 - 'we didn't want to go to war but now we are we should support British troops.'
Which, as someone once said, is a bit like being opposed to swimming. Unless you find yourself in water.

Red Orc wrote:I take it you mean you thought they were opposed.

If so, sorry to disappoint.

The Lib-Dem position was:
1 - 'it is wrong for Britain and America to bomb Iraq. But it's alright if FRANCE DOES IT TOO.'
2 - 'we didn't want to go to war but now we are we should support British troops.'
Which, as someone once said, is a bit like being opposed to swimming. Unless you find yourself in water.

I must say I agree wholeheartedly with that...

They were as anti-war as you are gonna get from a mainstream party, perhaps I should have said. And I think there are probably many Lib Dem MPs who were as against the war as you appear to be (and I certainly am).

Red Orc wrote:'we didn't want to go to war but now we are we should support British troops.'

Well, I think that's normal if you're in a governing position, if you do not support them, you take away any form of authority they have (if they still have some left, of course), but this does not take away it is your duty to make the right choice, and there are but two:
1) Get the hell out of there, and stop get your guys killed
2) Get out of there as quick as possible, but do not leave the population behind in a state worse as the one you've found them in, because, once, they'll take revenge for that...

Anyway, that's what I think

boudicca wrote:
They were as anti-war as you are gonna get from a mainstream party, perhaps I should have said. And I think there are probably many Lib Dem MPs who were as against the war as you appear to be (and I certainly am).

Ah, I quite agree that they were as against the war as any mainstream party - which kinda backs up my point about parties, I feel. s**t sandwich, or s**t sandwich with ground glass in it? Hmmm, give me a minute...

Oh, yes, I was against the war, I went on the 1&1/2 million London demo, and I was f**king appalled at the number of people who were there because
1 - they wanted the other side to win (such as George Galloway - that's not opposing a war!), or
2 - there weren't enough other countries joining in (so presumably Iraq could be even MORE flattened - eg the Lib-Dems)

I'm absolutely sure that there are many decent people in the Lib-Dems who have consciences (sorry, just realised in your post you said MPs - not sure about that but what's below I would apply to normal party members) - as there are in the Labour party, and I'm sure there MUST be some in the Tory... no, wait a minute... anyway, there are 'nice' people out there, as Obviousman knows I believe MOST people are (basically) 'nice' - personally I think they should get the f**k out of their political parties and stop being part of the problem.

I can't spell sandwich.

Obviousman wrote:

Red Orc wrote:'we didn't want to go to war but now we are we should support British troops.'

Well, I think that's normal if you're in a governing position, if you do not support them, you take away any form of authority they have (if they still have some left, of course), but this does not take away it is your duty to make the right choice, and there are but two:
1) Get the hell out of there, and stop get your guys killed
2) Get out of there as quick as possible, but do not leave the population behind in a state worse as the one you've found them in, because, once, they'll take revenge for that...

Anyway, that's what I think

Funny, mate how you back me up by arguing against me...

If a party is so tied to the political machinery that it is 'forced' to support a war it doesn't believe in, surely that doesn't say much for the party OR the political system, does it? I mean, we're being fairly light-hearted about this, but thousands of people have been killed and there's no end to the violence, repression, and destruction (from all quaters, not just the Americans). If that isn't a reason to take a stand, I don't know what is.

Red Orc wrote:If a party is so tied to the political machinery that it is 'forced' to support a war it doesn't believe in, surely that doesn't say much for the party OR the political system, does it? I mean, we're being fairly light-hearted about this, but thousands of people have been killed and there's no end to the violence, repression, and destruction (from all quaters, not just the Americans). If that isn't a reason to take a stand, I don't know what is.

What I meant to say rather then that parties are tied to political machinery is that they should always be there for their citizens, and since soldiers are citizens (even employees) of a state, they should back them up, which of course they also should not let them commit crimes

A quick point on the anti-war stuff; while being completely in agreement that it was wrong for Britain to get involved in the USA's neo-imperialist adventure in Iraq, I do see how Blair didn't really feel he had a lot of choice. Just look at the way France was vilified by America for refusing to join in. Freedom fries anyone?

Bush does seem to have a very black-and-white view of the world; a "with us or against us" mentality doesn't make for good compromises.

markfiend wrote:Bush does seem to have a very black-and-white view of the world; a "with us or against us" mentality doesn't make for good compromises.

That what makes absolutist regimes and parties, they're not willing to make compromises...

I'd agree with you.

It's very hard to make a compromise with a man who effectively said to the rest of the world "This is what we're going to do, and if you don't like it, well come and have a go if you think you're hard enough."

Red Orc wrote: s**t sandwich, or s**t sandwich with ground glass in it? Hmmm, give me a minute...

s**t sandwich.

Obviousman wrote: What I meant to say rather then that parties are tied to political machinery is that they should always be there for their citizens, and since soldiers are citizens (even employees) of a state, they should back them up, which of course they also should not let them commit crimes

Sorry, possibly I'm being absolutist here, but I don't see how I can compromise on this one. If war is wrong, so is supporting 'your' troops in the war. The First World War was wrong, some people opposed it. They didn't say 'War is wrong so we should beat Germany/Russia/France as quickly as possible so the fewest possible should get killed' they said 'Refuse to obey orders. Turn your guns on your officers. The soldiers of the enemy state are not YOUR enemy.' And at home they said 'Capitalism is death and war. The only way to end war and hunger is to end capitalism'.

That's the only way I know of to oppose war.

What is it good for?

Red Orc wrote: Sorry, possibly I'm being absolutist here, but I don't see how I can compromise on this one. If war is wrong, so is supporting 'your' troops in the war.

The problem is whether or not it was your party and your government that sent them in. If a party believes that war is wrong, presumably it's not going to have any obligation to support any troops, because it won't have sent them in.
If you're taking over from a warmongering bunch of wankers and arse-lickers, then it's a matter of withdrawing them as quickly as possible, but taking into consideration the state of the nation you'll be leaving behind.

If you have any sense of international responsibility, that is. Which I think most anti-war parties would.

I began to get steam coming out of my ears every time I heard "we've got to support the troops" though.
I support those men on the other side who didn't choose to fight. Whose corpses are probably still lying unburied... no fanfare or elaborate funeral for them. No getting carried out of a plane with a flag over you.

boudicca wrote:The problem is whether or not it was your party and your government that sent them in. If a party believes that war is wrong, presumably it's not going to have any obligation to support any troops, because it won't have sent them in.
If you're taking over from a warmongering bunch of wankers and arse-lickers, then it's a matter of withdrawing them as quickly as possible, but taking into consideration the state of the nation you'll be leaving behind.

If you have any sense of international responsibility, that is. Which I think most anti-war parties would.

I began to get steam coming out of my ears every time I heard "we've got to support the troops" though.
I support those men on the other side who didn't choose to fight. Whose corpses are probably still lying unburied... no fanfare or elaborate funeral for them. No getting carried out of a plane with a flag over you.

Exactly what I wanted to say...