Tories the future (part1)
Discussion
Not sure you want to hear from me then as last time I thought they were crap and pandered to soundbite politics, who can fire off a smart arsed answer to pander to a public with an attention span less than my goldfish. I don't have a goldfish btw.
Another question though. How do you get people to focus on policies as opposed to personalities and simple tribalism?
Another question though. How do you get people to focus on policies as opposed to personalities and simple tribalism?
FiF said:
Personally I think that Ofcom has made an incorrect decision.
I can't find the damned graph now but if you look at the decline/growth in party membership, whilst their decision in favour of UKIP is correct, their decision against Green party is incorrect.
Greens and UKIP in membership terms are growing and not that far behind LibDems, amazingly.
Cons have halved under Cameron.
The problem with using party membership to measure or decide anything really is that party membership as a % of the electorate is in decline right across Europe. Only a few nations where it isn't, Spain, Italy and Estonia.
Apart from Austria and Cyprus, where membership is around 16%, across Europe party membership is generally 6% or less. In UK it's nearer 1% than 2.
Tribalistic political parties are irrelevant and should really consider how they engage with the electorate.
FIF, if you look at the OFCOM reasoning, it seems based on polling, not party membershipI can't find the damned graph now but if you look at the decline/growth in party membership, whilst their decision in favour of UKIP is correct, their decision against Green party is incorrect.
Greens and UKIP in membership terms are growing and not that far behind LibDems, amazingly.
Cons have halved under Cameron.
The problem with using party membership to measure or decide anything really is that party membership as a % of the electorate is in decline right across Europe. Only a few nations where it isn't, Spain, Italy and Estonia.
Apart from Austria and Cyprus, where membership is around 16%, across Europe party membership is generally 6% or less. In UK it's nearer 1% than 2.
Tribalistic political parties are irrelevant and should really consider how they engage with the electorate.
NicD said:
FIF, if you look at the OFCOM reasoning, it seems based on polling, not party membership
Yes I realised that, but was using the party membership issue to justify why the Greens should be included, despite personally thinking the debates are generally an import from USA we could do without. Green party membership is rising fast and isn't far behind UKIP now who themselves aren't far behind LD.
That was my argument for including Greens.
Then went on to point out the weakness in using that measure because of low level of party membership generally.
Perhaps it's wrong on this forum to poke holes in your own arguments in the interest of balance.
Incidentally someone used party membership the other day to try and justify why any referendum campaign should/could be completely unbalanced in favour of EU membership, aiui in both coverage and funding. Interesting concept considering membership is only 1 point something % of the electorate.
FiF said:
Incidentally someone used party membership the other day to try and justify why any referendum campaign should/could be completely unbalanced in favour of EU membership, aiui in both coverage and funding. Interesting concept considering membership is only 1 point something % of the electorate.
Misquoting me again?I suggested not that it should be, that it inevitably would be since the pro-EU parties had 10x as many members. and so so 10x the finances
It is worth noting that OFCOM said it was up to the broadcasters who they invite. But they said that neither Greens or UKIP were "major parties". So go with that definition and UKIP would be excluded too.
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
Incidentally someone used party membership the other day to try and justify why any referendum campaign should/could be completely unbalanced in favour of EU membership, aiui in both coverage and funding. Interesting concept considering membership is only 1 point something % of the electorate.
Misquoting me again?I suggested not that it should be, that it inevitably would be since the pro-EU parties had 10x as many members. and so so 10x the finances
It is worth noting that OFCOM said it was up to the broadcasters who they invite. But they said that neither Greens or UKIP were "major parties". So go with that definition and UKIP would be excluded too.
Incidentally just as a reminder I told you to sod off because of your scurrilous and untrue accusations that I would find no referendum fair and that it was in no way possible. You are utterly utterly wrong. I suggest you take that advice and go away.
JustAnotherLogin said:
Misquoting me again?
I suggested not that it should be, that it inevitably would be since the pro-EU parties had 10x as many members. and so so 10x the finances
It is worth noting that OFCOM said it was up to the broadcasters who they invite. But they said that neither Greens or UKIP were "major parties". So go with that definition and UKIP would be excluded too.
I have already addressed this blatant LIE you are peddling on the televised election debate thread...I suggested not that it should be, that it inevitably would be since the pro-EU parties had 10x as many members. and so so 10x the finances
It is worth noting that OFCOM said it was up to the broadcasters who they invite. But they said that neither Greens or UKIP were "major parties". So go with that definition and UKIP would be excluded too.
ofcom said:
2.19 Taking together all the evidence, the criteria suggest that UKIP has sufficiently demonstrated evidence of past electoral support and current support to qualify for major party status in England and Wales for the purposes of the General Election and English local(and mayoral) elections in May 2015.
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/consultations/major-parties-15/summary/Major_parties.pdfFiF said:
Another question though. How do you get people to focus on policies as opposed to personalities and simple tribalism?
Personally, I would take a Robin Day/Paxman figure, and I would have a series of 1 to 1 interviews/cross-examinations. These would not be the Newsnight/Today programme fairly cheap shot interview, but a calm and rigorous examination of policies that the leaders would be presenting on behalf of their parties. I also thikn a similar exercise for the putative chancellors, home secs and foreign secs woudl be a good thing. The focus on the party leaders tends to obscure the fact that we don't have a Presidential style of Government. All a pipe dream though. The broadcasters want the debates not because they are a good thing, but because they make good television (good in the sense of Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer). What I propose would appeal to a narrower cross-section of the audience, I suspect.
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
Another question though. How do you get people to focus on policies as opposed to personalities and simple tribalism?
Personally, I would take a Robin Day/Paxman figure, and I would have a series of 1 to 1 interviews/cross-examinations. These would not be the Newsnight/Today programme fairly cheap shot interview, but a calm and rigorous examination of policies that the leaders would be presenting on behalf of their parties. I also thikn a similar exercise for the putative chancellors, home secs and foreign secs woudl be a good thing. The focus on the party leaders tends to obscure the fact that we don't have a Presidential style of Government. All a pipe dream though. The broadcasters want the debates not because they are a good thing, but because they make good television (good in the sense of Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer). What I propose would appeal to a narrower cross-section of the audience, I suspect.
FiF said:
Good suggestion. It would be difficult to hold such an interview which was sufficiently searching yet not overly combative for the sake of just argumentative behaviour. Difficult to explain never mind actually achieve. I mean not let them off the hook when they are clearly being evasive but not the ridiculous things seen at times.
Absolutely. I think Humphries is a joke when interviewing, Paxman became lazy and fell into aggression bordering on dismissive disdain too readily, and Evan Davies (who I actually quite like) is too soft for such a task. Robin Day is about the only interviewer I can think of who could have pulled it off. FiF said:
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
Another question though. How do you get people to focus on policies as opposed to personalities and simple tribalism?
Personally, I would take a Robin Day/Paxman figure, and I would have a series of 1 to 1 interviews/cross-examinations. These would not be the Newsnight/Today programme fairly cheap shot interview, but a calm and rigorous examination of policies that the leaders would be presenting on behalf of their parties. I also thikn a similar exercise for the putative chancellors, home secs and foreign secs woudl be a good thing. The focus on the party leaders tends to obscure the fact that we don't have a Presidential style of Government. All a pipe dream though. The broadcasters want the debates not because they are a good thing, but because they make good television (good in the sense of Jeremy Kyle/Jerry Springer). What I propose would appeal to a narrower cross-section of the audience, I suspect.
it would be good to see election pledges made legally enforceable ,though i am not sure that is realistically possible or even desirable in all areas as situations can change so quickly.
wc98 said:
it is a good suggestion that only fails on one point. they could give all the answers in a very sincere way,then renege on the promised policy implementations once in power,something all too common in recent years.
it would be good to see election pledges made legally enforceable ,though i am not sure that is realistically possible or even desirable in all areas as situations can change so quickly.
That's the problem with living in what is technically an elected dictatorship. Once in power with an overall majority they can do what the hell they like.it would be good to see election pledges made legally enforceable ,though i am not sure that is realistically possible or even desirable in all areas as situations can change so quickly.
FiF said:
That's the problem with living in what is technically an elected dictatorship. Once in power with an overall majority they can do what the hell they like.
That's not really right, is it, on a number of levels? The idea of governance by repeated referenda ("Text "yes" to 87654 to vote in favour of this proposal") isn't viable. I genuinely do not think it would be possible to brief the general public to the level required for them to make informed decisions on matters of (say) foreign or economic policy.
Legally enforceable pledges made during an election would simply mean that no party would make any promises. They'd express aspirations or intentions. And in any event, as wc98 acknowledges, circumstances change.
Greg66 said:
FiF said:
That's the problem with living in what is technically an elected dictatorship. Once in power with an overall majority they can do what the hell they like.
That's not really right, is it, on a number of levels? The idea of governance by repeated referenda ("Text "yes" to 87654 to vote in favour of this proposal") isn't viable. I genuinely do not think it would be possible to brief the general public to the level required for them to make informed decisions on matters of (say) foreign or economic policy.
FiF said:
If there were quote marks it would misquoting, but there aren't any quotes. It is however covering the thrust of your argument. Party membership is but one very minor factor just over one per cent of the electorate. Party membership fees account for a small part of finances, even you should know that. Points at Tory fees for dinners with PM et al as just one example. Never mind donations by business following lobbying.
Incidentally just as a reminder I told you to sod off because of your scurrilous and untrue accusations that I would find no referendum fair and that it was in no way possible. You are utterly utterly wrong. I suggest you take that advice and go away.
It seemed inevitable from what you were saying about the 1975 election, so was neither scurrilous or untrueIncidentally just as a reminder I told you to sod off because of your scurrilous and untrue accusations that I would find no referendum fair and that it was in no way possible. You are utterly utterly wrong. I suggest you take that advice and go away.
You are right that the parties have other sources of income. If you have anything to prove that the pro-EU parties (LibLabConGreen) parties will not have 10x the finances of the anti-EU parties (UKIP, BNP), then do post it.
As for the rest, I wasn't aware that you were in change of who was allowed to post on this forum. So you think you can decide to limit someone else's free speech? I'm sure someone else in the news has been doing that. Now who was it
Yazar. I had not seen the quote you just posted. The articles I had read did not seem to say that. I stand corrected. Apologies, but it was not a lie
FiF said:
wc98 said:
it is a good suggestion that only fails on one point. they could give all the answers in a very sincere way,then renege on the promised policy implementations once in power,something all too common in recent years.
it would be good to see election pledges made legally enforceable ,though i am not sure that is realistically possible or even desirable in all areas as situations can change so quickly.
That's the problem with living in what is technically an elected dictatorship. Once in power with an overall majority they can do what the hell they like.it would be good to see election pledges made legally enforceable ,though i am not sure that is realistically possible or even desirable in all areas as situations can change so quickly.
Perhaps you could get a pledge from each party about a handful of different spending policys during their parliament (with a waiver should to UK come under attack militarily). Spending per head on health, armed forces, welfare, overseas aid and education. 3 options of increase, decrease or the same (within 1%). Fail to meet any of these promises and anyone in the cabinet during that time cannot stand for re-election for 10 years.
Greg66 said:
Fittster said:
Can you explain why the Swiss system wouldn't work in the UK?
I'd be happy to debate the merits or otherwise of the Swiss system, but perhaps it would help the readership if you set out how the Swiss system works. Fittster said:
Can you explain why the Swiss system wouldn't work in the UK?
Talk to the Swiss. Man of them would argue that the Swiss system doesn't even work in Switzerland - there are some cantons that aren't even convinced that the federal system is a good idea. Besides, federalising the UK would involve breaking up England into regional assemblies of roughly equal size as S,W, & NI to get a proper balance. Not an insurmountable burden, you could repurpose the HoL to do it, but it would be a big step. There are 2 main reasons however, that the Swiss system would never work in the UK in my view:
1. It requires very high levels of social responsibility and active involvement in community affairs - something that is almost completely lacking in the UK. Our style of representative democracy is such that every 5 years we pick a team to get on with it, and then abrogate ourselves from all responsibility whilst reserving the right to moan about it. I just cannot see normal people being prepared to engage in the levels of involvement necessary to qualify them to participate in the voting.
2. The UK is used to a level of privacy which isn't compatible with the Swiss approach. For example in Switzerland one of the ways they ensure that people pay the correct level of taxes is to make people's private tax records open for public scrutiny. So if your neighbour is swanning around in a Ferrari 458 whilst you know damn well he's a Police Sergeant you pop down to the local tax office and have a look to see what his declared income is. Then, if you think he's diddling his taxes, you dob him in to the authorities.
JustAnotherLogin said:
FiF said:
If there were quote marks it would misquoting, but there aren't any quotes. It is however covering the thrust of your argument. Party membership is but one very minor factor just over one per cent of the electorate. Party membership fees account for a small part of finances, even you should know that. Points at Tory fees for dinners with PM et al as just one example. Never mind donations by business following lobbying.
Incidentally just as a reminder I told you to sod off because of your scurrilous and untrue accusations that I would find no referendum fair and that it was in no way possible. You are utterly utterly wrong. I suggest you take that advice and go away.
It seemed inevitable from what you were saying about the 1975 election, so was neither scurrilous or untrueIncidentally just as a reminder I told you to sod off because of your scurrilous and untrue accusations that I would find no referendum fair and that it was in no way possible. You are utterly utterly wrong. I suggest you take that advice and go away.
You are right that the parties have other sources of income. If you have anything to prove that the pro-EU parties (LibLabConGreen) parties will not have 10x the finances of the anti-EU parties (UKIP, BNP), then do post it.
As for the rest, I wasn't aware that you were in change of who was allowed to post on this forum. So you think you can decide to limit someone else's free speech? I'm sure someone else in the news has been doing that. Now who was it
Yazar. I had not seen the quote you just posted. The articles I had read did not seem to say that. I stand corrected. Apologies, but it was not a lie
Secondly, as you see determined to not read things correctly.
You asked what happened in 1975 to give people the impression that the debate was unbalanced and questioned media coverage.
I answered that question fairly. There is an excellent lecture by Prof Vernon Bogdanor, one of a series of 6 attended, that backs up all my points as a matter of historical record.
I then pointed out a small number of those things that happened in 1975 which have a parallel to things today and questioned whether similar things were to be tried. Although also pointing out that circumstances are very different today.
You then tried to make a link that I was saying a fair referendum today was not possible.
That is not true I don't think that.
But here you are again, when called out on what you have written and clearly inferred, wriggling and denying.
Go jump in the canal or river as your pants appear to be on fire. And yes I am calling you what you think.
Now do go away and leave me alone.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff