|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: UK's Thatcher, rot in hell . . . | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
None of which is a crime - and all of which had/have significant popular support.
Under both Thatcher and Reagan, there was the escalation of the Cold War, income taxes was cut, privatization was pushed, tax rates for the rich were lowered, unions were broken, globalization over national interests were advanced, and military spending was massively increased. dronester writes:
And yet, many of that 99% voted for the measures that supposedly caused those effects. You seem to be thumbing your nose at democracy as much as at Thatcher.
The result was rising unemployment, stagnant or lowering of wages, and higher poverty rates . . . lower standards of living for the 99%.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
As far as I know, it's very similar to the Canadian system.
How familiar are you with the British electoral system?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
You don't get to decide what their best interests are.
BUT, I have often said that voters often vote against their best interests for a number of reasons. dronester writes:
What the people want and what they vote for and how the government treats their wants are three different matters. Health care reform for government-style sinlge payer system health care in the US WAS at 70%. So why didn't the governemnt do what we wanted? A better question might be: Why do you re-elect legislators that don't do what you want?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
Your interests give you the right to an opinion, nothing else. You can try to convince others of what their own best interests are but it's futile to tell them that their choice is wrong or their choice should "rot in hell".
But, if their best interests intersect my best interests, there seems to be a problem. dronester writes:
You may have to run for office yourself.
I never have persuaded a person from voting lesser evil. If you know a way, please enlighten me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
None the less, that is the democratic process. It's intended to satisfy the maximum number of people. The magic number "fifty per cent plus one" is arbitrary and meaningless.
My point would be that no-one (strictly speaking) voted for Thatcher at all, and only a minority voted for her party. Dr adequate writes:
I don't know about the UK but in Canada a minority government is often considered by the "winning" party to be a crushing defeat. It often makes for better government, though. It encourages radical practices such as "cooperation between parties".
Indeed, if one of the American parties got as small a proportion of the vote as the Conservatives did, it would be considered a crushing defeat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Personal satisfaction is a volatile and fickle thing. Unfortunately, most ballots don't have an option for "reverse the result of the election if I change my mind later on".
ringo writes:
Well, it didn't. None the less, that is the democratic process. It's intended to satisfy the maximum number of people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
Sour grapes make good whine.
Who voted her in? Oh, right, a minority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
I think it means, for example, when somebody points out that X won the election and the sour-grapesman replies that it was only because the system is flawed. The fact remains that X won the election - i.e. you didn't get the grapes you wanted.
You should look up the meaning of the term "sour grapes" before using it again. It does not mean what you think it means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
That's close enough for anything but an argumentum ad dictionarium.
"They didn't hire me? Well, that company sucks anyway, I'd have hated working there. I'm lucky I didn't get the job." That's sour grapes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
To paraphrase the inimitable Dr Adequate, if you had nothing to say, you could have said it much more concisely. If you don't want words to mean what they mean, then all I have to say to you is that you are an avuncular watermelon who frequently macerates contrapuntal anteaters while you perversely interpret inconsequential conurbations. Are you ducking the issue intentionally? The point is that Margaret Thatcher was elected democratically. Whether she was chosen by a "minority" or a "majority" is irrelevant. The fact is that she was the best choice for the greatest number of people. That fact was reaffirmed twice. If you don't like the process that was used to choose her, boo-hoo, but facts is facts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
Democracy may not be a perfect system but it's the best one we have. And it shouldn't be blamed for people's everyday opinions, just the elections.
When Bush Jr, the immoral retard, wanted to invade Afghanistan/Iraq, he had about 90% support from americans.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate writes:
As I have said, "majority" is an arbitrary and irrelevant number. Thatcher's election satisfied the largest number of people.
My point is that her election did not satisfy the majority of voters at the point when they went into the voting booths and voted. Dr Adequate writes:
She was elected indirectly. Elected is elected.
The last time she was elected (and she wasn't, her party was).... Dr Adequate writes:
In fact, it's theoretically possible - and I believe it has happened a few times - that the party with the most popular votes doesn't win the most seats. It's not so very different from the American system with its Electoral College, really. ... it was by a thumping great 42% of the electorate. Representative democracy works that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
dronester writes:
That's why we have government by representative instead of government by opinion poll. Our elected representatives, as good or bad as they may be, tend to smooth out the whims of public opinion over the long term.
Who is the government if not the people. Where does the government get its authority and morals from if not from the people?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Dr Adequate 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.
She was carrying out her own ideology, independent of what the public actually wanted. Dr Adequate writes:
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?
A majority of them didn't want her to do those things, and they didn't want her to be Prime Minister.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Dr adequate 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.
And dissatisfied a greater number of people. Dr Adequate writes:
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.
Because of the strange British electoral system, this does not follow from the mere fact that she was elected.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024