Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 92 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-19-2018 1:12 AM
66 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1, ICANT, PaulK, Tanypteryx (5 members, 61 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 844,443 Year: 19,266/29,783 Month: 1,211/2,043 Week: 256/507 Day: 4/80 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   UK's Thatcher, rot in hell . . .
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10276
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 121 of 149 (696869)
04-19-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by caffeine
04-19-2013 10:19 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Caf writes:

The problem is not with having more than two parties.

Well that depends what the complaint is. If the complaint is that Thatcher specifically pushed through an agenda without having 50%+ of the vote - Then it seems fair enough to point out that this is true of pretty much every UK government largely because the vote is split 3 ways.

Caf writes:

The problem is with an absurd and anachronistic electoral system that means votes don't match a party's representation in Parliament.

I voted for voting reform when it was put to referendum recently. However that referendum went the way of maintaining the status quo. So we can blame the electorate for the ongoing use of the present system.

Caf writes:

If Britain had a normal electoral system, the conservatives would have been forced to find allies, and wouldn't have been able to force through their programme against everyone else's complaints.

I used to think that too. Increasingly I think the present conservative led administration wouldn't be able to get away with some of the more extreme things it is now doing but for the fact it is being shielded by the Lib Dems....

Caf writes:

The same would have gone for Blair.

I think having to partner with the Lib Dems probably would have curbed the worst excesses of Blair's authoratarian streak with regard to "security" measures and suchlike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by caffeine, posted 04-19-2013 10:19 AM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by caffeine, posted 04-22-2013 5:21 AM Straggler has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 122 of 149 (696876)
04-19-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2013 2:36 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

She was carrying out her own ideology, independent of what the public actually wanted.


The public knew what her ideology was (or ought to have known) when they elected her. They affirmed their support for her ideology by re-electing her twice.

Dr Adequate writes:

A majority of them didn't want her to do those things, and they didn't want her to be Prime Minister.


You keep using the word "majority" as if it had some significance. If Thatcher had been elected by a tiny majority or a substantial majority or a huge majority, would that justify her actions any more than if she was elected by the system that is?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2013 2:36 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:17 PM ringo has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 123 of 149 (696880)
04-19-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Dr Adequate
04-18-2013 2:40 PM


Dr adequate writes:

And dissatisfied a greater number of people.


It doesn't matter how many people were dissatisfied. If only chocolate and strawberry are on the menu, it doesn't matter if most people want vanilla.

Dr Adequate writes:

Because of the strange British electoral system, this does not follow from the mere fact that she was elected.


As I have mentioned, the British system isn't that different from the American system. Americans seem to have an obsession with numbers like "majority" but that doesn't seem to generate a higher level of satisfaction in their government.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-18-2013 2:40 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Rahvin, posted 04-19-2013 1:02 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1170 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 124 of 149 (696888)
04-19-2013 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by ringo
04-19-2013 12:12 PM


It doesn't matter how many people were dissatisfied. If only chocolate and strawberry are on the menu, it doesn't matter if most people want vanilla.

That is simultaneously the most succinct and most accurate description of (at least American, which I realize isn't actually what you're talking about) politics I have seen in a long time.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 12:12 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by dronestar, posted 04-19-2013 1:14 PM Rahvin has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 323 days)
Posts: 1379
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 125 of 149 (696891)
04-19-2013 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Rahvin
04-19-2013 1:02 PM


RingO writes:

It doesn't matter how many people were dissatisfied. If only chocolate and strawberry are on the menu, it doesn't matter if most people want vanilla.

Rahvin writes:

That is simultaneously the most succinct and most accurate description of (at least American, which I realize isn't actually what you're talking about) politics I have seen in a long time.

Most accurate? Errrm, . . . I disagree. There were many flavors of 'vanilla' on the menu in the past: You had low-fat-vanilla-Howard Dean, Vanilla-with-real-vanilla-beans-Nador, Vanilla-with-chocolate-chips-Kucinich, and finally French-Vanilla-Jill Stein.

They were unfortunately withdrawn from the market because of poor sales.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Rahvin, posted 04-19-2013 1:02 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Rahvin, posted 04-19-2013 1:19 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16076
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 126 of 149 (696892)
04-19-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ringo
04-19-2013 12:06 PM


The public knew what her ideology was (or ought to have known) when they elected her. They affirmed their support for her ideology by re-electing her twice.

Except that they didn't.

You keep using the word "majority" as if it had some significance. If Thatcher had been elected by a tiny majority or a substantial majority or a huge majority, would that justify her actions any more than if she was elected by the system that is?

If she had merely been an instrument of the popular will, then that would to some degree have excused her, since if it hadn't been her it would have been someone else. But that was not the case.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 12:06 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:32 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1170 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 127 of 149 (696893)
04-19-2013 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by dronestar
04-19-2013 1:14 PM


Most accurate? Errrm, . . . I disagree. There were many flavors of 'vanilla' on the menu in the past: You had low-fat-vanilla-Howard Dean, Vanilla-with-real-vanilla-beans-Nador, Vanilla-with-chocolate-chips-Kucinich, and finally French-Vanilla-Jill Stein.

They were unfortunately withdrawn from the market because of poor sales.

There's a difference between accuracy and precision.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.” - Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." - Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by dronestar, posted 04-19-2013 1:14 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 128 of 149 (696894)
04-19-2013 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 1:17 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

ringo writes:

The public knew what her ideology was (or ought to have known) when they elected her. They affirmed their support for her ideology by re-electing her twice.

Except that they didn't.

Didn't what? Know what her ideology was? Or re-affirm their support?

Dr Adequate writes:

If she had merely been an instrument of the popular will, then that would to some degree have excused her, since if it hadn't been her it would have been someone else.


"I was only following orders," is seldom acceptable as an excuse. Whether the Brits were following her orders or she was following theirs, none of them is exculpable.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:17 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:35 PM ringo has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16076
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 129 of 149 (696896)
04-19-2013 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Straggler
04-19-2013 7:41 AM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
So if we follow your logic no UK government except the one of 1931 has ever had a popular mandate...

They didn't. The words "popular mandate" mean something, and yes, it describes something that no UK government since 1931 has actually had. What they've often had is an absolute majority in Parliament.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 7:41 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 1:54 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16076
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 130 of 149 (696898)
04-19-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ringo
04-19-2013 1:32 PM


Didn't what? Know what her ideology was? Or re-affirm their support?

Didn't vote for her.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:32 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15806
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 131 of 149 (696903)
04-19-2013 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 1:35 PM


Dr Adequate writes:

Didn't vote for her.


They voted for her indirectly.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:35 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:58 PM ringo has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10276
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 132 of 149 (696906)
04-19-2013 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 1:33 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
OK. In which case there is no reason to single out Thatcher on that.

There are numerous things we could single her out for. Many of which I would do so. But this majority popular vote thing isn't one of them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:33 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:58 PM Straggler has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16076
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 133 of 149 (696908)
04-19-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by ringo
04-19-2013 1:48 PM


They voted for her indirectly.

No. In none of the elections were indirect ballots cast, 'cos of there being no such thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by ringo, posted 04-19-2013 1:48 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ringo, posted 04-20-2013 12:02 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16076
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 134 of 149 (696910)
04-19-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Straggler
04-19-2013 1:54 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
OK. In which case there is no reason to single out Thatcher on that.

I didn't. I said that it wasn't an excuse in her particular case. If people tried to excuse any other British Prime Minister on the same grounds, I'd say the same thing.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 1:54 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 04-19-2013 2:02 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10276
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 135 of 149 (696911)
04-19-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Dr Adequate
04-19-2013 1:58 PM


Re: Blame Game Numbers
Well I don't think she should be excused and I don't think anyone else who objects to her policies has said she should be excused either.

The simple point here is that without people voting for her she would have been nothing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 1:58 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-19-2013 2:28 PM Straggler has responded

  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018