The UK Election!!!!

Source?

Public opinion is common knowledge amongst those who keep up with public opinion. The question is, are the opinion polls you linked to representative of actual public opinion?But I think it definitely worth pointing out something. I don't think you are attempting to be dishonest or 'spin' things in a certain way. But when you mention the nationalisation of rail using the word majority in the some context as the majority of opinion re: Afghanistan some people might think them on the same level.It might have been more accurate to say:About a half (when weighted) of 1200 people that said they were adults emailed said they wanted the railways nationalised.A little over a half of 1100 16-64 year olds asked back the death penalty for certain crimes, dropping from about 3/4 of however many asked 15 years ago.It doesn't necessarily hamper the point you were raising - but I thought I'd shed light on some specifics. I appreciate that being nuanced this way would have interrupted the flow of your argument unnecessarily - but it's good to have a link available for those who wish to consider your ideas fully, no?To the point you were raising though, there is something that might be of interest.People don't always vote on a single issue. It is unlikely that someone that agrees with Labour on all points would swing to Conservative if they promised to bring in the death penalty, if that person backed the death penalty. However, for something like the death penalty, it can be expected that a much larger proportion of supporters will swing their vote or abstain in protest if they disagree with that position.Pushing that position does seem when I look at it, to be a poor political strategy.Politicians are forced to appeal to as many people as possible, without adopting a position that turns off large swathes of people while balancing their own personal political views and making appropriate (or inappropriate) compromises.So even if a group of elected people were perfectly representative of the public (within reasonable limits) - they might have to not champion some ideas so that they stand a better chance of getting 'more important' ideas adopted.And naturally - a tyranny of the majority has its problems, so it's a good idea to have certain principles within which to operate, so as to constrain the power of the people and those that represent them.So, do you have any opinions on what the party's are saying they will do with regards to creating a system that might improve the level of representation and influence the people do have? That seems to be a key issue for you...is it one that could swing you to one party or another?

I know it would be beside the point you were making. That's why I said, 'It doesn't necessarily hamper the point you were raising' and stressed that I pointed it out for completeness. I know, which is why I also said that 'I appreciate that being nuanced this way would have interrupted the flow of your argument unnecessarily'. Even were such a system possible, which it presently isn't, it wouldn't necessarily be desirable.It might be preferred to have smart people making decisions even if there are some conflicts of interest between them and the people they make the decisions on behalf of rather than have half of the people making decisions be below average intelligence or have below average knowledge of the subject at hand.Do I want the economy run in the way that the 'average person' would? Hell no. If America tried it, creationism would probably be being taught in very little time.I think it might be easier to use science to try and learn how to align the interests of the decision makers more closely with the interests of those affected, to figure out why humans - even experts - make immoral decisions and how the frequency or magnitude of those decisions might be minimised. The alternative is to try and educate the public up to the level where the difference between the average person and an expert is negligible.The Conservatives are saying they think the age of information has now brought us to a point where that gap is shrinking enough to do something, though I'm not sure the measures they propose are quite as radical or game changing as you'd like. I think that making sure that an education bill that increases funding to all schools is more important that putting forward a highly divisive topic that is unlikely to gain support and losing political support for your education bill too...Stupid? Yes. Flawed? Yes. But very very difficult to avoid. And even harder to get out of once in. Just to be fair though, this is not the fault of the politicians entirely. Naturally - there are many politicians who have deliberately exacerbated the situation, but many more just have to try and work with the system they have. Reform is either slow and steady, or rapid and dangerous. Not necessarily, no. Either system can produce unfair outcomes. Do we want selfish educated people deciding the unfair outcomes, or everyone at once? Greater London could command 1/9 of the vote! Is that fair? Kind of. But also not. When it comes to taxation, is it fair that the people of say 8 cities get 1/5 of the vote as to how much people in say Truro should pay towards road or fuel tax? Well sort of, but sort of not. Fairness is kind of difficult to pin down really.I agree that things could probably be done fairer than they presently are. To be fair though, what else can the Conservatives do, but talk?As far as the points you raise, Labour doesn't have a great deal to say. Their main pertinent point is that they say they will increase the autonomy of local governments.I guess the Lib Dems biggest pertinent thing is the single transferable vote, which you may think gives the people an increase in representation in parliament.The Conservatives say they will make any petition that secures 100k signatures will be put to parliament for debate and for bills to spend some time 'paused' in process to give time for the public to read and discuss them.Of those ideas, aside from your confidence whether they will be implemented poorly or at all, which do you think puts more power in the hands of the people? It's just that - if you want the kind of ends that you talk about...you probably won't get it in one single stroke. You have to work slowly towards it. Do you think any of the ideas here might give the people enough power to take the next step in a true democracy?

Given they got over 20% of the vote last time but only secured 10% of the seats., that wouldn't surprise me at all. We might see 30% vote share each (give or take) but with Lib Dems only actually gaining a few extra seats!

And malicious people have the technology to hijack it. I agree we're getting to the point where it is conceivable to have a multimillion strong pure democracy...but we're not there yet I don't think. For some. But you'll need to convince 51% of people to invest more into education rather than lowering income tax, increasing police coverage etc etc etc. It may work, but if it doesn't - it is feasible to see a potential vicious circle forming where education is controlled by the ignorant majority which instead of increasing the illumination of the next gen, results in perpetuation of ignorance. So basically you're saying you want a largely similar system that we have now, only with frequent referendums and direct elections for 'cabinet' positions? I fail to see how a homosexual could have less cause for complaint if they were forbidden to get married because of a bigoted majority rather than a bigoted minority. But many decisions require intimate knowledge of the subject to make the remotely accurately. There are many many subjects in politics where the facts are incomprehensible to anyone but the experts - and the experts disagree on the interpretation of the facts, and almost certainly don't entirely understand the situation.It's an inescapable conclusion that there is a possibility of running the lives of 60million people (plus affecting those our international affairs touch on) based on the decision making capacities of people with good intentions and little more.
It might work - if implemented well. But I think you are presenting it a little optimistically. Utopias rarely are. Yes, it's a simple sense. And it is fair in a simple sense. In a more nuanced sense you may not be right.I believe it was James Bovard that said "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." In a simple sense, it is fair. But I think one might also agree it is not fair.And if an injustice were to be approved of by the people - who would be accountable for those injustices? So we should see Tory's get an equal share of the vote in Scotland? If 60 million people lived in London, I'd argue it would not stop being the most populous city in the country...indeed it would now have 100% of the vote. And no - realistically people don't generally move house for tactical voting purposes. But aside from that, what are your opinions on their ideas? STV is a very small step? In comparison to your final goal I suppose that's fair enough. But how is this a big step if STV is very small? The power of the people isn't necessarily increased, by the Tory's - it just gives the people another, more democratic, avenue to have their issues raised in parliament. There doesn't seem to be any obligation beyond debating the issue which does at least give us some insights into the positions our politicians are saying they have. I agree the Conservatives have a way alleviate the feelings of lack of participation...and that this might in turn increase voter interest somewhat. And they are trying to impose a mechanic that gives the people the opportunity to see things for themselves (or at least have the people bombarded with media reports about them for a while). There are many important issues, I'm still reading manifestos and checking associated facts - but voter representation and financial sector reforms seem to be key issues I think.

Well constant polling sounds to me like frequent referendums to me. Unless you think we should rule the law based on what one particular polling organisation interprets to be the current pulse of the nation?And you said you wanted experts in charge of working out how to implement the wishes of the people regarding say, education. I thought that you would want these experts to be directly elected by the people based on their qualifications and experience for making education related decisions, as well as presumably their hairstyle, suit choice, teeth and matrimonial status. Your first reaction would be 'whether or not you want to live in Britain?', seriously? But do you think they have less grounds for complaint just because it was the wishes of a majority of citizens rather than the majority of represented officials? 51% of people that vote is not 'the whole bloody country'. It is almost certainly the minority of the people of the country. The point is that it is not possible to fully explain things to the public without giving them perhaps several years of education in the topic at hand. Therefore, any simplified version will be inaccurate and the way it is simplified will be filtered by a minority of experts with their own interests.Point is, I think you are being a little over idealistic. Well, there is a little more than mere good intentions as you hint at. They are competent people that manage to make lots of money and protect themselves quite well throughout a massive financial catastrophe. Indeed any democratic system where the will of the majority could piss on the minority in a terrible way suffers like this...as long as you accept this is a problem that should not be ignored and that it applies to your utopian pure democracy. So ultimately - nobody pays, everybody is safe to make terrible decisions with no ramifications at all. Have you studied human nature at all? People are more likely to be held accountable for injustices in the present system, as low as that likelihood may be. Again - it is difficult to hold Parliament to account, but if a decision is voted upon - how each member votes is publicly available and the people that that person represents wish to fire them they have unfortunately limited powers to do that.But look - I'm all fine with a democratic socialist utopia of the future and all that. I'm just trying to highlight the tarnishes in the system you are presenting as shiny. We have probably only a few disagreements with regards to the relative shininess of the present system. Of course. But it seemed you were initially presenting that as a means to lower the vote share of London so as to self correct for the fact that London has such a high proportion of the population and this might lead to certain geographical demographics coming into play. I'm fairly sure the entire population moving to London would not lessen the vote share of London in how the country is run.

Because surely the grounds for complaint is the unfair treatment. It surely doesn't matter if most people are cool with the unfair treatment is concerned. If it were true that the majority of the German people were basically cool with Jews being shipped out and their businesses seized for the Reich, then are you suggesting the Jews have less grounds for complaint after losing their homes and their businesses?I think they'd have as good grounds to complain about the actions of a majority of the German Volk as they would to complain about the actions of the Nazi Party if it were more unilateral action on their behalf. It doesn't matter whose treating you unfairly or how many of them there are. It's still unfair, by definition. It doesn't become fair because most of the people that you share the tax destination with say so. Or you are doing the opposite. I'm pretty sure I said we basically agreed on the shortcomings of the present system. I suggested an alternative of attempting to create a system wherein the interests of the politicians are more correctly aligned to the interests of the people. So when the politicians act in their own interests, which they often will being human, it will also be in our interests. Indeed - but you agree that it is possible to identify certain people who we regard as responsible even if the system at present does not allow for them to pay. But do they suffer the direct consequences of their decision? If the British people voted to go to war in Iraq...it's the soldiers and the people in Iraq that suffer the direct consequences. What consequences do the people of Britain suffer? It costs them a bit more money? They have to suffer with liberals saying 'I told you so'.You can see how that seems like the same as it is now. Neither do I, but you brought it up. I was just saying that in a pure democracy it might the case that a certain geographical demographic which is more populous (eg., the cities) might essentially gain control of Britain. You retorted that if this was the case people would move to the areas that have control which would ameliorate the problem which I rebutted by pointing out it would exacerbate it.It might be how Toqueville highlighted (or was it Rousseau?) - where one class gains control over another. You might argue the larger class should have more say, but it's a legitimate issue that it wouldn't do to gloss over...that's all I'm really saying. Do you think it might work to have a compulsory education level to vote? Something akin to six GCSEs or something? And have taking the exams, free once per year per person per exam or something? It just seems to me, if we're trying to create a fair and better system which relies on improving the education of our citizens, we might want to consider something less arbitrary than age as the determining factor in who gets to vote.

Wow - and I thought that the BBC airing this:followed immediately by an advert for the next debate with the David Cameron railing against Gordon Brown trying to frighten people in an election, would have caused a stir. I almost fell out of my chair. But Brown has upped the ante. Well played, sir.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

But your grounds for complaint is the unfairness. That's upon what grounds you could complain about the overdraft fees. What you lack is legal recourse (and actually: you don't lack that either, since just because you agreed to the terms and conditions, if those terms are found to be outside the boundaries of fairness and reasonableness - you are not contractually obliged to comply. If your credit card company hikes its rates up to 5000%, they have no legal grounds to collect even if you signed a document that says you agree to it.)But legal recourse or not, your grounds for complaint - that it is unfair, are either valid or not. Or perhaps they accepted Nazi propaganda because they believed it was true, and attempted to propagandize their children so they would believe it too. The grounds for complaint the jews had were that they had lived there all their lives, built a business, paid taxes, helped develop their community, had children and had just the same right to stay there as anyone else in the same position. It doesn't matter whether they had recourse to do anything about it by appealing to the majority, or to the courts. Don't confuse recourse to change with grounds for complaint. Just because nobody cares about your complaint - you either have grounds for complaint or you don't.So while you might have no avenues of complaint and have nobody to complain to that doesn't undermine the nature of your complaint. No - all that changes is the subject of the complaint. It doesn't matter who is treating you unfairly. It is either fair or it isn't and your grounds are equal regardless of how many people happen to disagree with you at any given time. Their grounds for complaint are that the house was legally owned and the house cannot be sold without the legal owners consent or a court order (to repay debts, not 'the whim of the neighbourhood' etc).It doesn't matter who trampled on the rights of the home owner, just one con man - or a mob with flaming torches and pitchforks. The grounds for complaint remain essentially the same.If you and your neighbours all agree ahead of time that there would be a vote to get rid of someone, there is no duress placed upon anybody, then you would have less grounds for complaint since in that instance at least - you essentially gave your consent for your property rights to be revoked. In the other example, the people hadn't given their consent that they could lose their homes at the whim of either a democratic vote or the unilateral action of a political party and their muscle then if that were to happen - their grounds for complaint: nonconsensual eviction, are the same. Actually no. The only time the grounds for complaint would be any different is if they were specifically unfair to you (ie., the banks all agreed to charge you 100 and everyone else in the country was given 50).If it was just your present bank that overcharged, then its just your present bank against whom your complaint of unfairness should be levelled. If it is them all, then it is all of them against whom you are complaining. But your reasoning as to why it is unfair (ie,. your grounds for complaint) do not change.Unless for some reason, your grounds for complaint are 'Only one bank acts unfairly, which is in its own right unfair'. But I don't think that's your issue with the overdraft fees. Do not confuse explaining the merits of the present system as believing it has no flaws, and that many of those flaws we agree on. Don't manufacture significant dissent between us on this issue, I assure you it is absent. Message 84

quote:

---

I think it might be easier to use science to try and learn how to align the interests of the decision makers more closely with the interests of those affected, to figure out why humans - even experts - make immoral decisions and how the frequency or magnitude of those decisions might be minimised.

---

And I don't disagree. What I'm asking is, is it necessarily better to have a system where consequences cannot ensue from it rather than trying to modify the present system where accountability is in principle possible? So it's basically the same as the present system then. The only consequence is criticism and self-imposed guilt (which will probably not happen since it doesn't now, people will just blame some other decision that other people made that ruined everything).Basically there is no direct accountability at all. It's vague and undefined, and people would just hide behind the other people as excuses for why things would break down and responsibility would be less likely to exist surely?If you think the 'average joe' is somehow less susceptible to rationalization and excuse making when it comes to taking responsibility for their decisions than politicians are: I have a feeling you'll be surprised. Doesn't having any arbitrary voting restriction, such as age or education? Shouldn't four year olds be able to vote?I'm just thinking of a different restriction that might at least be in some way related to knowledge and understanding of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship.I thought that this might require a good handle on English Comprehension, critical thinking etc so I figured some kind of test to see if you are ready to help make decisions might be better than as soon as you hit 16/18 years old you can vote. It is both, of course. It is a right that we have the privilege to be able to exercise. But a 16 year old does not have the privilege in this country to exercise that right. It is already a 'gifted privelege' that not all have access to.I was just suggesting that we make it absolutely free to access the information required to educate yourself up to a high enough level whenever you wish to do so (rather than the quantity of compulsory education there is now). You can drop out early and not vote, or you can keep at it until you have shown that you have the basic skills required to participate in running a country. And those that don't want it? Agreed. We know too much and we're in the age of information. It's about time we started teaching the kids the tools for how to deal with the information rather than just spoon feeding it to them in a Victorian fashion. Some places are beginning to test this model out, but old fashioned laws are making it difficult. And what if during that period the person never attended any classes? Or paid any attention while in the class? Just because teaching is compulsory it doesn't mean learning is compulsory.Why not be able to answer the infamous kids question of "Why do I need to know about the Treaty of Versailles?" with "Because if you want to vote, you'll need to know about these kinds of things, lest you make uninformed and thus poor decisions like this Treaty. If you want to be joint sovereign of this nation, you need to know certain things."

Slightly larger aside: it was both.On the back of a major financial crisis which did happen to have a lot of jews involved in it^*: Hitler secured 18.3% of the vote on the 'blame the jews for our woes ticket. Apparently many Germans went along with that'. This meant that other party's lost votes, and thus seats and the Reichstag became divided and unable to present a united front against Hitler's party.In 1932 they secured 37.4% of the vote, becoming the largest party in the Reichstag. The next largest party were a communist party, the KPD. They did not agree so the Nazi's had difficulty enacting any of their more...controversial proposals.So to break the deadlock, deals and intrigue went on - images that Cameron is trying to provide us all with now. Eventually Hitler was appointed Reich Chancellor by Hindenberg.Then came the Reichstag fire, which Hitler blamed on communists and managed to get the second largest party banned on these grounds and was able to gain an actual majority in Parliament (along with allied parties).Then the Enabling Act was passed (with armed guards 'overseeing things for security'), dissolving the seperation of powers, essentially giving Hitler dictatorship of Germany and the rest...played out pretty badly for everyone concerned.In many ways - he played by the book. He might have engaged in some dirty tricks, but other than possibly arson, he was more opportunistic and cunning than brute force. The SA 'subtle hint' in a bill that gave Hitler 'emergency powers' was really as far as it went. Though it was far enough unfortunately.

---

^* Because the Christians believed they couldn't loan with interest to one another (usury prohibitions in the old testament) they turned to the jews and soon forced them into the loaning business so they could expand their influence (and eventually because of the collateral system that meant they had a lot of jewellery, gold, real estate and were ludicrously wealthy) and finally the Christians realized there was real money to be made in finance, criticized the jews for being greedy usurers and took all their stuff).It was a fairly common cycle: Hitler just had better technology to do what others had wanted to do for a long time.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

quote:

---

10pm:
307 seats — Conservative Party
255 seats — Labour Party
59 seats — Liberal Democrat Party
29 seats — Other Parties

---

Which means the Liberal Democrats lost three seats, and there is no majority government.Corrected results

quote:

---

11pm
305 - Conservative Party
255 - Labour Party
61 - Liberal Democrats
29 - Other

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Talks of people being turned away at poll closing time, denied the ability to vote because of large queues. Reports of 'sit-ins' of people refusing to leave. Police intervention in Hackney? People have turned up at Nick Clegg's house complaining and Clegg is giving concerned sound bites.The two returned results from Sunderland suggest a near 10% swing towards Conservatives.

A coalition is still on the cards to be honest. Conservatives are looking to get about 307 seats.Gordon Brown just offered as a minimum: instant electoral reform referendum.Liberal Democrats have been trying to get that for close to a century. I think Clegg is being diplomatically open minded. Cameron will need to offer something damned impressive not to turn Clegg's head to the Labour deal.Taking it might hurt their rep - but it might still result in an increase their seat share in a future government...

Gordon Brown remains the Prime Minister until he resigns.Normally a resignation is forced when another party commands a clear majority. So we're still Labour under Gordon Brown until they decide among themselves to change. Yeah - the most likely outcomes I think are:a) A Conservative minority government relying on periodic support from LD and/or partial Labour support. This is unstable since they can be overrulled by Lib/Lab cooperation whenever there was significant disagreement (Which would probably be more often than we like)b) A Lib/Lab minority coalition. A little more stable in that the Conservatives can only defeat them with the support of the sundry small parties.David Cameron is about to make his first declaration - he may challenge the other parties to vote him down on the Queen's Speech vote (traditionally held to be a vote of 'no confidence' that occurs at the end of May)

He actually said, in that politician's typical fashion that it was now 'up to the Conservative Party' to 'prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest'. And immediately followed that by pointing out that the election makes abundantly clear electoral reform is required.So presumably, if the Conservatives can't promise electoral reform, Clegg would conclude they have been unable to prove they are capable of seeking to govern in the national interest...