Westminster Politics

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
Should that be more important than the fact he had unique access into the decision making of this event? If he provides communications that corroborate his view, can you separate the man from the message?
I don't believe he is a truthful man. Some will be true, other parts will be bollocks.

But, if a politician lying or making outrageous comments comes as a surprise, you've (not aimed at anyone) lived a sheltered life!

Let us replace Bojo and then we can move on to disgusting the faults and failures of the next leader from whichever party (highly unlikely to be Labour)
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
4,617

I'm expecting the one show plus some dog whistle racism as well as some more overt racism
"Be there or be square" ... cannot believe Farage really said that... wasn't that one straight from 'Cool for Cats' with Kent Walton?
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,829
I don't believe he is a truthful man. Some will be true, other parts will be bollocks.

But, if a politician lying or making outrageous comments comes as a surprise, you've (not aimed at anyone) lived a sheltered life!

Let us replace Bojo and then we can move on to disgusting the faults and failures of the next leader from whichever party (highly unlikely to be Labour)
That's not really how accountability works, though. If you expect people in positions of power to misuse that power due to misaligned incentives, flawed ethics, poor decision-making etc. then you guard against that by providing transparency, independent audits, etc. That old idea of checks and balances.

If you just brush everything away as that's just politicians doing what politicians do, grow up mate then the inevitable consequence is that power will be misused more and more frequently, which tends to have severe consequences for those downstream. And in a democratic system the people downstream are the people who elect them in the first place, so it'd be a particularly silly way for democracies to function.

Let's hold all of our politicians to a standard that actually benefits the society they govern over, rather than fighting some silly tribal battle of my guy's better than your guy so suck it. That requires you to pay attention to the substance of what people like Dominic Cumming say, while stripping out his own personal motivations and flaws. Otherwise you're actively choosing to make democracy function worse.
 

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
That's not really how accountability works, though. If you expect people in positions of power to misuse that power due to misaligned incentives, flawed ethics, poor decision-making etc. then you guard against that by providing transparency, independent audits, etc. That old idea of checks and balances.

If you just brush everything away as that's just politicians doing what politicians do, grow up mate then the inevitable consequence is that power will be misused more and more frequently, which tends to have severe consequences for those downstream. And in a democratic system the people downstream are the people who elect them in the first place, so it'd be a particularly silly way for democracies to function.

Let's hold all of our politicians to a standard that actually benefits the society they govern over, rather than fighting some silly tribal battle of my guy's better than your guy so suck it. That requires you to pay attention to the substance of what people like Dominic Cumming say, while stripping out his own personal motivations and flaws. Otherwise you're actively choosing to make democracy function worse.
Sounds like a plan. Good luck with it.
 

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
Do you think your attitude is healthy in a democracy?
This is the problem with making any sort of comment on here. You don't know the first thing about me or my thoughts but you base your assumption on a single comment aimed at nobody in particular.

You clearly want to engage and I do not.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
4,617
Do you think your attitude is healthy in a democracy?
Isn't the truth of it,that we get the politicians we deserve?
Party politics is not democracy, its just "my gangs bigger, or better or in some case less 'unbelievable', than yours"; however if you elected (could elect) 650 individuals with no party affiliations and all honest upstanding and never tell lies, would we be any better off... and crucially, would anything ever get done?
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,829
This is the problem with making any sort of comment on here. You don't know the first thing about me or my thoughts but you base your assumption on a single comment aimed at nobody in particular.

You clearly want to engage and I do not.
Yes, if you make a comment on a discussion forum which someone doesn't agree with, often they will reply and enter into a discussion. Political discussions tend to be a bit more heated because they matter a lot more to real people than whether Ronaldo is better than Messi.

My first comment was expanding on your comment and explaining my thinking, in other words kicking off a discussion. You took a dismissive attitude to it, and I asked whether that dismissive attitude is healthy in politics because it followed on directly from the prior point - dismissing issues on the basis of party affiliations and low political standards.

If you'd replied to the first comment there would no assumptions, just a transparent discussion. If you only want people to agree with you, rather than present alternative opinions and try to dig deeper into the issue, then there are better places to do that than a forum designed for discussion.

In general, it's healthy in a democracy for political views to be challenged. People need to justify their beliefs and decisions because they impact on others in that democracy. In my view, it's a sign of a dysfunctional democracy if the very notion of that discussion is considered offensive. And I do think our democracy is dysfunctional so uncomfortable discussions are inevitable.

Isn't the truth of it,that we get the politicians we deserve?
Party politics is not democracy, its just "my gangs bigger, or better or in some case less 'unbelievable', than yours"; however if you elected (could elect) 650 individuals with no party affiliations and all honest upstanding and never tell lies, would we be any better off... and crucially, would anything ever get done?
I do think it's true that we get the politicians we deserve. We hold them to a very low standard and they happily fall to those standards.

I don't remotely agree that having more transparency, ethical standards, political alignment etc. would make things worse. The idea that this is just the way politics works, and if you tried to get more out of it you would just make things worse, is evidently untrue. The way politics works in the UK and the way it works in e.g. Norway is different. Things still get done.

There are trade-offs to make on any decision but that's just a straw man argument based on a conservative principle: we shouldn't change anything because we don't know if that other thing is better, usually it isn't, usually we've ended up with the best we can get. But whether you think that's true in general, it is demonstrably untrue on a case by case basis.

If you are happy with how things work and don't want to change anything, that's cool. I obviously have a different view. If you think things don't work, things are bad because of the choices we've made, but you still don't want to change anything, that's a huge political problem. I think it's endemic in British politics. It's apathy on an absurd scale.
 

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
Yes, if you make a comment on a discussion forum which someone doesn't agree with, often they will reply and enter into a discussion. Political discussions tend to be a bit more heated because they matter a lot more to real people than whether Ronaldo is better than Messi.

My first comment was expanding on your comment and explaining my thinking, in other words kicking off a discussion. You took a dismissive attitude to it, and I asked whether that dismissive attitude is healthy in politics because it followed on directly from the prior point - dismissing issues on the basis of party affiliations and low political standards.

If you'd replied to the first comment there would no assumptions, just a transparent discussion. If you only want people to agree with you, rather than present alternative opinions and try to dig deeper into the issue, then there are better places to do that than a forum designed for discussion.

In general, it's healthy in a democracy for political views to be challenged. People need to justify their beliefs and decisions because they impact on others in that democracy. In my view, it's a sign of a dysfunctional democracy if the very notion of that discussion is considered offensive.



I do think it's true that we get the politicians we deserve. We hold them to a very low standard and they happily fall to those standards.

I don't remotely agree that having more transparency, ethical standards, political alignment etc. would make things worse. The idea that this is just the way politics works, and if you tried to get more out of it you would just make things worse, is evidently untrue. The way politics works in the UK and the way it works in e.g. Norway is different. Things still get done.

There are trade-offs to make on any decision but that's just a straw man argument based on a conservative principle: we shouldn't change anything because we don't know if that other thing is better, usually it isn't, usually we've ended up with the best we can get. But whether you think that's true in general, it is demonstrably untrue on a case by case basis.

If you are happy with how things work and don't want to change anything, that's cool. I obviously have a different view. If you think things don't work, things are bad because of the choices we've made, but you still don't want to change anything, that's a huge political problem. I think it's endemic in British politics. It's apathy on an absurd scale.
Thank you for explaining how this stuff works even if it was a little condescending, I feel enlightened.
 

DavidDeSchmikes

Full Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
17,114
“This is going to take some explanation from Boris Johnson”

Johnson: “I didn’t say that”

Everyone: “what’s for dinner?”
Well, I'd like to see ol Bo Jo wriggle his way out of THIS jam! *Boris Johnson wriggles his way out of the jam easily* Ah! Well. Nevertheless,
 

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
You sound like the condescending one here.
Edit: deleted as I absolutely can't be arsed having to explain myself on the fecking Internet every time I want to make a comment.

I wish people a good morning and some cnut would quiestion it
 
Last edited:

Salt Bailly

Auburn, not Ginger.
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
9,415
Location
Valinor
Edit: deleted as I absolutely can't be arsed having to explain myself on the fecking Internet every time I want to make a comment.

I wish people a good morning and some cnut would quiestion it
With good reason given it's 13:23.
 

Paxi

Dagestani MMA Boiled Egg Expert
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
27,678
Great post, well done. I imagine you're very proud to go on the Internet and make little smart remarks at people
You mustn’t be very self-aware, either. Read back on your own interaction with Brwned and tell me who is posting sarcy, condescending remarks — to a poster whom wants to have a genuine debate with them.
 

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
You mustn’t be very self-aware, either. Read back on your own interaction with Brwned and tell me who is posting sarcy, condescending remarks — to a poster whom wants to have a genuine debate with them.
Self-aware, another key word posted on here often.

I clearly stated I wasn't interested in a debate but still, the mob comes out.

Let's show a little respect for eachother and leave it there. I see no gain for anyone in this continuing
 

TwoSheds

More sheds (and tiles) than you, probably
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
12,739
Self-aware, another key word posted on here often.

I clearly stated I wasn't interested in a debate but still, the mob comes out.

Let's show a little respect for eachother and leave it there. I see no gain for anyone in this continuing
Why are you still posting then? :lol:

What a crybaby.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,829
Thank you for explaining how this stuff works even if it was a little condescending, I feel enlightened.
I get your point, sometimes you can't be arsed getting into a lengthy debate with a stranger. Especially in a political discussion where you see no middle ground, what's the point? I do genuinely think we have a problem in this country with difficult political discussions, so I pushed a bit on that, but I wouldn't have begruded you just ignoring it. You'd hardly be the first!

I was just saying I didn't go into it in bad faith, I wasn't trying to jump on your opinions, I thought there was an opportunity for a discussion from two opposing views on a complicated issue. If you'd have just said nah man I can't be arsed with that, fair enough. But if you're going to spin it into something else - first being dismissive of my view, then pointing out what I did as "the problem" with this place - then some clarification seemed worthwhile.
 

Widow

Full Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2020
Messages
6,966
Location
Can't spell Mkhitaryan
I get your point, sometimes you can't be arsed getting into a lengthy debate with a stranger. Especially in a political discussion where you see no middle ground, what's the point? I do genuinely think we have a problem in this country with difficult political discussions, so I pushed a bit on that, but I wouldn't have begruded you just ignoring it. You'd hardly be the first!

I was just saying I didn't go into it in bad faith, I wasn't trying to jump on your opinions, I thought there was an opportunity for a discussion from two opposing views on a complicated issue. If you'd have just said nah man I can't be arsed with that, fair enough. But if you're going to spin it into something else - first being dismissive of my view, then pointing out what I did as "the problem" with this place - then some clarification seemed worthwhile.
Maybe I was just having a really bad morning. Maybe this heat and being in a stuffy courtroom for an extended period made me a little cranky.

I apologise unreservedly.
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,829
Maybe I was just having a really bad morning. Maybe this heat and being in a stuffy courtroom for an extended period made me a little cranky.

I apologise unreservedly.
Aye the heat's bad enough in my own home, plus those god damn flies...so I wouldn't do too well in a courtroom right now myself! No bother.
 

Pexbo

Winner of the 'I'm not reading that' medal.
Joined
Jun 2, 2009
Messages
68,413
Location
Brizzle
Supports
Big Days
cnuts going after our Marcus again

Inevitable really but they’re barking up the wrong tree going after him. The lad is a saint if you ask the majority of the nation and trying to run a smear piece on him will only reflect badly on the Spectator. It’s not like Marcus’ core following will ever read it anyway.
 

Dobba

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
28,461
Location
"You and your paper can feck off."
The Spectator have published an out and proud antisemite for years and also have a woman beater, who said he couldn't work in schools in case he tried to feck the kids, on their payroll.

Their readers will lap it up, their contributors and editor will still be booked onto the BBC three to four times a week and nobody will give a toss.
 

Maticmaker

Full Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
4,617
I do think it's true that we get the politicians we deserve. We hold them to a very low standard and they happily fall to those standards.

I don't remotely agree that having more transparency, ethical standards, political alignment etc. would make things worse.
The idea that this is just the way politics works, and if you tried to get more out of it you would just make things worse, is evidently untrue. The way politics works in the UK and the way it works in e.g. Norway is different. Things still get done.

There are trade-offs to make on any decision but that's just a straw man argument based on a conservative principle: we shouldn't change anything because we don't know if that other thing is better, usually it isn't, usually we've ended up with the best we can get. But whether you think that's true in general, it is demonstrably untrue on a case by case basis.

If you are happy with how things work and don't want to change anything, that's cool. I obviously have a different view. If you think things don't work, things are bad because of the choices we've made, but you still don't want to change anything, that's a huge political problem. I think it's endemic in British politics. It's apathy on an absurd scale.
I don't understand the 'we', in this sentence, clearly you are someone who does not hold to low standards for politicians and so would not presumably include yourself in this grouping?

Neither do I, but just how do you get more transparency, ethical standards, political alignments into UK party politics?
Incidentally I don't think Norway is a good example its population is very similar to Scotland's, not the UK. Population size is important, especially if 'every vote needs to count'; taken together Norway , Sweden and Denmark barely cover 20-25 M, population and could not collectively be compared with the UK, even though they identify as separate countries, but as Nordic peoples

That clearly wasn't the feeling on Brexit, was it?

I am not happy with how things work and I don't oppose change, in some cases just for the hell of it..."change is as good as a rest" ... as the saying goes. The problem is how do we induce change, clearly (at least in my view) normal party politics doesn't embrace the kind of changes , I and probably many others would like to see, in fact it stifles it. As it stands to influence either of the major parties you need massive pressure groups, single issues in many cases, like the Brexit Party, which never won one seat in the UK parliament, yet brought about major change by ultimately threatening the powers that be in both the major parties, on the back of the referendum result.

Clearly after such a referendum no governing party is going to risk anything similar, at least not for some time, especially not on the basis of 'how we do things'.

I would very much like to hear your view, on just how we could change things?
 

Brwned

Have you ever been in love before?
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
50,829
I don't understand the 'we', in this sentence, clearly you are someone who does not hold to low standards for politicians and so would not presumably include yourself in this grouping?

Neither do I, but just how do you get more transparency, ethical standards, political alignments into UK party politics?
Incidentally I don't think Norway is a good example its population is very similar to Scotland's, not the UK. Population size is important, especially if 'every vote needs to count'; taken together Norway , Sweden and Denmark barely cover 20-25 M, population and could not collectively be compared with the UK, even though they identify as separate countries, but as Nordic peoples

That clearly wasn't the feeling on Brexit, was it?

I am not happy with how things work and I don't oppose change, in some cases just for the hell of it..."change is as good as a rest" ... as the saying goes. The problem is how do we induce change, clearly (at least in my view) normal party politics doesn't embrace the kind of changes , I and probably many others would like to see, in fact it stifles it. As it stands to influence either of the major parties you need massive pressure groups, single issues in many cases, like the Brexit Party, which never won one seat in the UK parliament, yet brought about major change by ultimately threatening the powers that be in both the major parties, on the back of the referendum result.

Clearly after such a referendum no governing party is going to risk anything similar, at least not for some time, especially not on the basis of 'how we do things'.

I would very much like to hear your view, on just how we could change things?
The "we" in this case is just UK citizens, which I'm one of. The way I see it, I share equal responsibility with any other voter for the challenges that we face. Advocating for the idea that we should expect accountability and transparency as standard is part of exercising that responsibility, but it effects little change on its own. I certainly wouldn't separate myself from other citizens on that basis: talk is cheap. Right now I exercise that responsibility very poorly because it depends on network effects, if most people don't want accountability, it doesn't matter if you do. So I'm part of that failing, regardless of my view.

I understand why you don't want to compare it to Norway, but the general principle remains regardless of which comparison you make. For example, Germany functions differently to the UK in lots of key ways.

Whether that's better or worse depends on your political perspectives etc. but the obvious truth is the way the UK functions now is not the only way it can function, and there's no basis for the claim that any new changes will just introduce trade-offs that end up 1 step forward, 1 step back. That's an ideological default but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. It depends on what choices are made and how they're implemented. If you're inclined to assume the wrong choices will be made, unintended consequences will follow, things will be poorly implemented, and that's just reality, then that's fair enough as an ideological view but it's logically flawed and results in a pointless discussion.

There's loads of ways we could change things. To me, that's an endless discussion which bores others and often goes down tunnels. Maybe another time I'll be up for going down those endless tunnels :)

More pertinently, I'm not advocating for myself as the person to determine those changes, I'm advocating for a democratic society to expect much more ownership of those decisions, and to feel like if some fundamental principles are violated that we are not just entitled but required to demand accountability and transparency. If we made that one shift I think a lot of downstream problems would be resolved in a better way than you or I can speculate on our own, I firmly believe in the power of the wisdom of crowds. I agree it would come with trade-offs but I can't agree at all that those trade-offs are worse than the current situation where accountability is considered this kind of amusing, mythical idea. It has a corrosive effect on political engagement which I would see as a central part of our current issues.