Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
Likewise. He will, forever, in my mind, dancing* in a double breasted suit in a youth club in Brixton in 1988.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
Wasn't it Milligan who called him the "grovelling little shit"? And Charles laughed with everyone else.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
Compare to the unstable politics of Italy, where almost every election they try a different electoral system. Attempts by the current government to introduce a unique quasi-presidential system (deliberately) miss the point that it is the *weakness* of political parties there that is a big part of the problem. (Though the new system, if introduced, might help enable a form of semi-dictatorship).
The forgotten issue is this. In any democratic situation, party politics evolves around what is possible within it, and voters act collectively to achieve what they want within the constraints of the system. This is always imperfect. The next election is likely to be a good example of it.
System change merely, in most cases, moves the imperfections around and causes confusion, and can take decades for the voting public to catch up.
Personally I want the smallest possible chance of centrists having to do deals with the simplistic and authoritarian right or the ideological and totalitarian left. In the UK FPTP achieves this as well as is realistic even though it isn't perfect. Even in the exceptional circumstances of 2027 and 2019 the system just about held on.
Well yes Italy is a good example I think of too many changes to the system making people have even less respect for whatever the latest version is, and more confused. It also allows the government to seriously suggest dangerous changes like the latest proposal.
But I don't know what you mean by 'voters act collectively to achieve what they want' - generally they are acting individually, and most of the time most of them don't get what they want.
One massive advantage of more proportional systems, is that people are much more likely to believe that their vote counts.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
The video would be no different if it were being posted by Emma Thompson, or somebody else who you do approve of. It has been posted by someone of an anti-Biden disposition, but that's fairly inevitable.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Stop being such a pompous arse. Who appointed you as guardian of royal protocol? You are the bizarre love child of Nick Witcher and Alan Partridge.
I remember when he got extremely exercised about my buying an EU flag during the time of the people’s vote campaign. That’s me, buying an EU flag, with my own money for my own use in my own home. You’d think I’d visited his house during the night and painted it blue and yellow, from the reaction I got.
I think we can conclude that he’s easily wound up?
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
Cry 'God for His Majesty King Henry V, England, and Saint George!'
35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.
Not all PBers were born before 1992 ... Yes, the indignation at Westminster having required Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to suffer representative compromise but threatened with exactly the same is quite something.
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
Cry 'God for His Majesty King Henry V, England, and Saint George!'
Indeed. Although [pedant alert] that was written about an earlier Harry during the reign of Good Queen Bess.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I don't have a problem with relative decline - that's a good thing all round. But yes - the risk of absolute decline is very real, if we don't address the underlying issues of over-consumption, wealth concentration and capital stagnation, environmental destruction etc.
I am not sure what you mean by 'capital stagnation', but 3 out of 3 on misdiagnosing the issues and proposing to make the situation worse otherwise.
All of these things represent a failure to "do more with less", deliver productivity benefits, and free people up for more creative work.
The problems are very real, but they don't necessarily require the left-y-green-y shrink-the-economy solutions I guess you are imagining.
Noted. Perhaps you'll elucidate more if opportunities present
Early in the year for CR to go full pub car park. Interesting times for the steam train charidee sector.
Lets hope @148grss doesn't ever go near a railway line. Would need to keep a careful eye out incase the Flying Scotsman came up on him suddenly from behind and ran him over a few times...
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
That account posts the bollox of bollox, other than for a chuckle at the crassness and obvious claptrap it is mince.
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
Cry 'God for His Majesty King Henry V, England, and Saint George!'
Indeed. Although [pedant alert] that was written about an earlier Harry during the reign of Good Queen Bess.
True - though the author would have been careful not to exceed limits. Given the enthusiasm for closing playhouses if they stepped out of line.
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
Whereas he would not piss on you if you were on fire and dying of cancer in front of him, he would just be wanting you towed away.I will save my sympathy for real people.
I (and I know some other PBers agree) would like King Charles III to have a lasting legacy in the form of building a new garden city. It would be called Carlowrie, which is a Scottish name, but uses 'Carl' (for Charles), and I think sounds nice. It would also take his focus away from interference in political matters. Poundbury on speed. Big statue of Charles in his ceremonial geegaws.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
"The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great." - A change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK, so I'm not prepared to accept that claim here and by implication elsewhere either.
"An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense." - Since I used the word "facilitated" rather than "explaining everything", you are trying to create a straw man. There's a reasonable case to be made that alternative electoral systems - including some of the less strictly proportional PR alternatives - would have accorded extremists much less influence in Israel. One which you airily dismiss as "obvious nonsense".
"You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties"." - Fine, in the case of Israel I'll rephrase that to "a myriad of tiny parties with significant collective parliamentary representation between them".
You seem convinced as to the merits of STV. What electoral system are you assuming that would I favour if I could pick and choose?
What’s your evidence that a “change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK”? The obvious comparison is New Zealand. They switched from FPTP to PR and it didn’t have a huge impact on their party system. Have you read Lijphart’s 1984 “Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries”? Great book.
If there’s a case to be made that less proportionality would have reduced the influence of extremist parties in Israel, make it. Show us how different voting systems would have played out. The problem in Israel is that the extremist parties would do well under most voting systems. The moderate Labor are struggling to get over the threshold. The Religious Zionist Party, among the most extreme, are the third largest party.
I don’t know what your preferred electoral system is. If you want to tell us, tell us. There’s no need for rhetorical games.
So your claim that the form of electoral systems would have "no great" impact on political parties is based on a publication 40 years old, when politics generally was very different to what it is today. I think that rather justifies my scepticism.
No-one can "show" anything, because you are dealing with historical "what ifs". All that is available is a reasoned case.
Since you ask for evidence regarding the UK, I'll give you one example. The Labour and Conservative parties between them received 23% of the vote at the 2019 European elections, coming 3rd and 4th respectively. Immediately prior to those elections they were polling around 50% to 60% between them in polling for general elections conducted under FPTP, which was much reduced from the norm but was still a huge difference. That shows just how fragile the present two party system is, FPTP being the only thing preventing a major realignment of parties in the UK. For example, had we somehow changed to PR after the 2017 general election, 2018-19 would I think have seen a viable Labour split and a mass exodus of Conservatives to the Brexit Party, after which the UK political landscape today would be very different.
You dismiss the idea that voting patterns change with different electoral systems, both initially in response to the change in system and also over time. You can't simply take a given level of parliamentary support for each party under one system and recalculate parliamentary representation if those same votes are applied in another.
I think that most PR systems provide a viable foothold for the initial establishment of small parties and then for those parties to grow upon securing initial parliamentary representation. As such most PR systems facilitate a fragmentation of political parties if the conditions are right. That is what you have seen in Israel over many decades now - 50 years ago the two largest parties there secured about 70% of the vote between them, most recently it was 41%. I think their electoral system has helped that. Conversely, I think FPTP is responsible for the fact that the UK is pretty well alone in Europe now in having no party of the far right with parliamentary representation.
I asked you about my preferences because you had chosen to assume that I preferred FPTP and gone on to use it as a straw man to dismiss my arguments against extreme forms of PR. It isn't FPTP. Rather it would be a majority bonus system with top up seats to the largest party or coalition of parties, not dissimilar to that in place in Greece, because by forcing alliances before not after an election it offers a clear choice to electors when they vote.
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
I can (just about) tolerate monarchists.
But people can sit and swivel if they want other people to show deference to monarchy as well. I’m happy for you to feel however you like. But Casino telling other people to be respectful is a bridge too far.
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
I get the sense I may have upset someone... and it's the left who are snowflakes who can't deal with free speech.
While your contribution helped the bizarre thing was that this was triggered by twistedfirestopper3 calling the King "Chaz". I don't think even Henry VIII would have been upset by being called something similar, like "Harry". Indeed I think he was in his reign.
Cry 'God for His Majesty King Henry V, England, and Saint George!'
Indeed. Although [pedant alert] that was written about an earlier Harry during the reign of Good Queen Bess.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
I can (just about) tolerate monarchists.
But people can sit and swivel if they want other people to show deference to monarchy as well. I’m happy for you to feel however you like. But Casino telling other people to be respectful is a bridge too far.
So you interjected on a conversation between him and someone else with a two word reply telling him to fuck off? It takes very little effort to politely explain your position, rather than insulting someone.
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
Whereas he would not piss on you if you were on fire and dying of cancer in front of him, he would just be wanting you towed away.I will save my sympathy for real people.
Of course he has no idea who I am. But when I was a teenager I received some financial help from the Prince's Trust and it really helped to broaden my horizons and I am grateful to the King for his role in setting up that organisation, which has helped many thousands of young people over the years.
In that clip Biden also refers to a "G7 meeting of all the NATO leaders" so he's even got that mixed up.
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s on Biden’s watch that Russia and Iran have been emboldened. Re-electing him might be the more dangerous option for the stability of the world.
Trump saluted Kim Jong Un. It's Trump that emboldens despots.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
In that clip Biden also refers to a "G7 meeting of all the NATO leaders" so he's even got that mixed up.
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s on Biden’s watch that Russia and Iran have been emboldened. Re-electing him might be the more dangerous option for the stability of the world.
Trump saluted Kim Jong Un. It's Trump that emboldens despots.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
At least we'd have elected them. And they wouldn't be president for life.
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
Whereas he would not piss on you if you were on fire and dying of cancer in front of him, he would just be wanting you towed away.I will save my sympathy for real people.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
It's a strange fact that many of the wealthiest, most stable countries in the world are monarchies.
This is true. However, in Europe, they also all have monarchies that are now less militaristic, and somewhat less susceptible to excessive pageantry.
Keep the military connections if you like, but scale it down a bit now. Otherwise, for a post-imperial country, there becomes a tinpot and theatrical aspect, that does not in fact so much encourage democracy.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
The video would be no different if it were being posted by Emma Thompson, or somebody else who you do approve of. It has been posted by someone of an anti-Biden disposition, but that's fairly inevitable.
You miss my point. There's an ocean of shit out there courtesy of far right MAGA Putinist accounts on the Twitter. It gets ever deeper as they pump out more every single minute of the day. This is indispisputable, right? Ok so the only question worth asking is, how does one best protect oneself from it?
I've decided the best way is to ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist. And if somebody tries to force-feed me some, I don't go along with it. I keep my mouth shut tight and crane away.
It's not the only way. I could go wading in there, into that vast turdy ocean, and seek out the occasional piece of dairy milk chocolate. Go, "Hmm, yeah, ok I suppose that is a point" when I stumble across it (maybe once a month or so).
But think of the time I'd have to invest in that. I just don't have it. Despite being not at all busy I don't have it. Perhaps you do. Perhaps Leon does. Perhaps you guys are able to protect yourselves against loopy far right propaganda without applying my rather brutalist approach. In which case, hats off.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
I agree with your sentiment but the argument is better made with politeness, even in the face of others being rude. More so, even.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
That's a feature not a bug for HYUFD. You aren't God so aren't allowed to choose.
I actually was! Will have to hunt back through posts now to work out what the sides are and whether I should be a belligerent or a conscientious objector.
ETA: Ah, I see. It's another war over a King Charles
People need to be tolerant of other people's opinions, but also sensitive to the fact that some will be quite upset by news that others will have little emotional response to. PB is a great place to argue but I think we should also remember to be kind to each other. Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
I can (just about) tolerate monarchists.
But people can sit and swivel if they want other people to show deference to monarchy as well. I’m happy for you to feel however you like. But Casino telling other people to be respectful is a bridge too far.
So you interjected on a conversation between him and someone else with a two word reply telling him to fuck off? It takes very little effort to politely explain your position, rather than insulting someone.
This is PB - people “interject” in conversations all the time.
And like I said in an earlier post - monarchy (and monarchism) deserves vulgarity as a response. The idea that a human being is somehow divinely chosen / genetically better to rule me deserves nothing but open disgust.
In that clip Biden also refers to a "G7 meeting of all the NATO leaders" so he's even got that mixed up.
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s on Biden’s watch that Russia and Iran have been emboldened. Re-electing him might be the more dangerous option for the stability of the world.
Trump saluted Kim Jong Un. It's Trump that emboldens despots.
The great foreign policy calamities are all happening under Biden, from Afghanistan to Ukraine to the new Middle East omnifuck
Correlation does not equal causation. But we have a heck of a lot of correlation - and Biden is sending an awful lot of cash to Kyiv even as three MILLION people - a whole new record - illegally walk across his southern border in a single year
REMINDER: @RishiSunak has done two long interviews with me for @PiersUncensored as PM but @Keir_Starmer has repeatedly broken promises to me to come on the show. Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
This took my breath away. @Heritage president flips the narrative and says “They’re leveraging the border crisis and the needs of our allies in Israel and Taiwan to extract more than $60 billion in additional unaccountable aid for Ukraine.” This weird bill was THEIR IDEA https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1754865818670698536
I pop off for an hour to power hose my BBQ (I'm sure I can put all the bits back together again) only to find all hell has broken loose and Casino is challenging yet another PBer to fight again.
Is there some sort of alert that can be set up so we can be notified on our mobiles when this happens please? Don't want to miss the next one.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
I agree with your sentiment but the argument is better made with politeness, even in the face of others being rude. More so, even.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
The video would be no different if it were being posted by Emma Thompson, or somebody else who you do approve of. It has been posted by someone of an anti-Biden disposition, but that's fairly inevitable.
You miss my point. There's an ocean of shit out there courtesy of far right MAGA Putinist accounts on the Twitter. It gets ever deeper as they pump out more every single minute of the day. This is indispisputable, right? Ok so the only question worth asking is, how does one best protect oneself from it?
I've decided the best way is to ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist. And if somebody tries to force-feed me some, I don't go along with it. I keep my mouth shut tight and crane away.
It's not the only way. I could go wading in there, into that vast turdy ocean, and seek out the occasional piece of dairy milk chocolate. Go, "Hmm, yeah, ok I suppose that is a point" when I stumble across it (maybe once a month or so).
But think of the time I'd have to invest in that. I just don't have it. Despite being not at all busy I don't have it. Perhaps you do. Perhaps Leon does. Perhaps you guys are able to protect yourselves against loopy far right propaganda without applying my rather brutalist approach. In which case, hats off.
That's fair enough; I feel much the same about not wasting my brain cells on the Orwellian statist soft left ecogarbage that's so beloved of much of the broadcast media. I get enough of a flavour of it from various PB posters, which I'm thankful to them for. I am fine with you living your truth and not really wanting it to be challenged too much, but the point remains that that is a video of Biden mangling a speech. You knew what was in it - the account posting it made no difference. If it was an article or piece of comment on the unsuitability of Biden for high office, it would have been different.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
You can't vote for President Ursula von der Leyen, yet you seem mighty keen on the EU, and very snippy about the Brexit revolution that overthrew her power over us
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
The video would be no different if it were being posted by Emma Thompson, or somebody else who you do approve of. It has been posted by someone of an anti-Biden disposition, but that's fairly inevitable.
You miss my point. There's an ocean of shit out there courtesy of far right MAGA Putinist accounts on the Twitter. It gets ever deeper as they pump out more every single minute of the day. This is indispisputable, right? Ok so the only question worth asking is, how does one best protect oneself from it?
I've decided the best way is to ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist. And if somebody tries to force-feed me some, I don't go along with it. I keep my mouth shut tight and crane away.
It's not the only way. I could go wading in there, into that vast turdy ocean, and seek out the occasional piece of dairy milk chocolate. Go, "Hmm, yeah, ok I suppose that is a point" when I stumble across it (maybe once a month or so).
But think of the time I'd have to invest in that. I just don't have it. Despite being not at all busy I don't have it. Perhaps you do. Perhaps Leon does. Perhaps you guys are able to protect yourselves against loopy far right propaganda without applying my rather brutalist approach. In which case, hats off.
Agreed. The story is available from more respectable sources.
I actually was! Will have to hunt back through posts now to work out what the sides are and whether I should be a belligerent or a conscientious objector.
ETA: Ah, I see. It's another war over a King Charles
I was out for lunch too, but funnily enough I saw a copy of The Star in the petrol garage , and the front page headline was “King Chas: I have cancer” and I thought it was a bit disrespectful.
Then again I think if he wasn’t King it would be just as disrespectful to call someone by a nickname they don’t use themselves to report such sad personal news, especially if you dislike them
REMINDER: @RishiSunak has done two long interviews with me for @PiersUncensored as PM but @Keir_Starmer has repeatedly broken promises to me to come on the show. Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
I pop off for an hour to power hose my BBQ (I'm sure I can put all the bits back together again) only to find all hell has broken loose and Casino is challenging yet another PB to fight again.
Is there some sort of alert that can be set up so we can be notified on our mobiles when this happens please? Don't want to miss the next one.
Yes, we need a Barney alert system. @rcs1000 perhaps one to add onto the next server update shopping list.
REMINDER: @RishiSunak has done two long interviews with me for @PiersUncensored as PM but @Keir_Starmer has repeatedly broken promises to me to come on the show. Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
REMINDER: @RishiSunak has done two long interviews with me for @PiersUncensored as PM but @Keir_Starmer has repeatedly broken promises to me to come on the show. Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
Perhaps Sunak realises that an interview with Piers Anus on Tory TV isn't worth his while.
I presume you mean Starmer - easy mistake to make.
Horrible when someone posts something they think is really clever but it’s let down by a blooper. Like someone talking to you in the pub and you notice toilet roll stuck to their shoe
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
I agree with your sentiment but the argument is better made with politeness, even in the face of others being rude. More so, even.
Yes, there is a way of calculating disproportionality and 2015 was slightly worse than 2005, mainly because of how UKIP failed to get seats despite their vote share. If you just look at the top 3 parties, 2005 seems worse, but minor parties suffered worse in 2015.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
I agree with your sentiment but the argument is better made with politeness, even in the face of others being rude. More so, even.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
I have no respect for the monarch - of course I don't. They have a throne of gold, a life of luxury, the best of everything. And why? Because their great great great grandaddy x times removed was a better murderer than someone else's great great great grandaddy etc. etc.
What are the arguments for a monarch? Their blood? Their ordainment by God? Their unmatched political genius and nous? Well, it certainly isn't the last one; and I don't give a shit about their blood line nor their God.
I'll be respectful when I get a say in my head of state. I'll be respectful when a load of posh unelected spongers don't have veto power over taxes on their land and laws that would show them up (such as laws against housing stolen artefacts, or not having racist hiring practices). I'll be respectful when the Crown is smashed into a tiny little pieces and the gold is melted down to give to the poor and destitute. I'll be respectful when "Charles III" goes the way of his namesake, first of his name.
So fuck off with your "It's King Charles III to you". You want to lick the boot and bow the knee, feel free. I'll fucking well stand, you tosser.
I agree with your sentiment but the argument is better made with politeness, even in the face of others being rude. More so, even.
Bollocks. That was so far POTY for me.
So kind - although I do worry about peaking so early.
Mr Sunak should certainly NOW realise that an interview with Piers isn't worth his while.
As for Starmer what possible benefit would he get from going on Talk TV? You realise he is currently 20% ahead in the polls or had that passed some of you by?
I pop off for an hour to power hose my BBQ (I'm sure I can put all the bits back together again) only to find all hell has broken loose and Casino is challenging yet another PB to fight again.
Is there some sort of alert that can be set up so we can be notified on our mobiles when this happens please? Don't want to miss the next one.
Yes, we need a Barney alert system. @rcs1000 perhaps one to add onto the next server update shopping list.
An Early warning systm.
Perhaps there could be some sort of email alert sound file, with rcs adding a few seconds from a world war II siren, every time Casino and others are about to enter a royal stramash, or Leon is about to sit down to one of his boozier lunches, and wreak his vengeance on the woke.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
In that clip Biden also refers to a "G7 meeting of all the NATO leaders" so he's even got that mixed up.
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s on Biden’s watch that Russia and Iran have been emboldened. Re-electing him might be the more dangerous option for the stability of the world.
Trump saluted Kim Jong Un. It's Trump that emboldens despots.
The great foreign policy calamities are all happening under Biden, from Afghanistan to Ukraine to the new Middle East omnifuck
Correlation does not equal causation. But we have a heck of a lot of correlation - and Biden is sending an awful lot of cash to Kyiv even as three MILLION people - a whole new record - illegally walk across his southern border in a single year
Meanwhile, Congress wants to send money to Israel, and prevent any action on wither Ukraine or the border for the next month at least.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
You can't vote for President Ursula von der Leyen, yet you seem mighty keen on the EU, and very snippy about the Brexit revolution that overthrew her power over us
You can't vote for many that are appointed by people who we do vote for. The US cabinet (with the exception of the President) is not voted for. None of our cabinet is voted for the positions they hold but are appointed by the PM. They are voted for by a very small subset of the population to carry out a different task. Some are not even voted into the Commons at all.
The idea that people we vote for then appoint people best able to carry out tasks seems sensible to me. Most of our elected ministers don't have a scooby do about the ministries they run.
The people that appoint the EU president are voted for by the people and the president is approved by a parliament that is voted for by the people. That is good enough for me. It is delegated democracy.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
"The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great." - A change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK, so I'm not prepared to accept that claim here and by implication elsewhere either.
"An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense." - Since I used the word "facilitated" rather than "explaining everything", you are trying to create a straw man. There's a reasonable case to be made that alternative electoral systems - including some of the less strictly proportional PR alternatives - would have accorded extremists much less influence in Israel. One which you airily dismiss as "obvious nonsense".
"You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties"." - Fine, in the case of Israel I'll rephrase that to "a myriad of tiny parties with significant collective parliamentary representation between them".
You seem convinced as to the merits of STV. What electoral system are you assuming that would I favour if I could pick and choose?
What’s your evidence that a “change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK”? The obvious comparison is New Zealand. They switched from FPTP to PR and it didn’t have a huge impact on their party system. Have you read Lijphart’s 1984 “Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries”? Great book.
If there’s a case to be made that less proportionality would have reduced the influence of extremist parties in Israel, make it. Show us how different voting systems would have played out. The problem in Israel is that the extremist parties would do well under most voting systems. The moderate Labor are struggling to get over the threshold. The Religious Zionist Party, among the most extreme, are the third largest party.
I don’t know what your preferred electoral system is. If you want to tell us, tell us. There’s no need for rhetorical games.
So your claim that the form of electoral systems would have "no great" impact on political parties is based on a publication 40 years old, when politics generally was very different to what it is today. I think that rather justifies my scepticism.
No-one can "show" anything, because you are dealing with historical "what ifs". All that is available is a reasoned case.
Since you ask for evidence regarding the UK, I'll give you one example. The Labour and Conservative parties between them received 23% of the vote at the 2019 European elections, coming 3rd and 4th respectively. Immediately prior to those elections they were polling around 50% to 60% between them in polling for general elections conducted under FPTP, which was much reduced from the norm but was still a huge difference. That shows just how fragile the present two party system is, FPTP being the only thing preventing a major realignment of parties in the UK. For example, had we somehow changed to PR after the 2017 general election, 2018-19 would I think have seen a viable Labour split and a mass exodus of Conservatives to the Brexit Party, after which the UK political landscape today would be very different.
You dismiss the idea that voting patterns change with different electoral systems, both initially in response to the change in system and also over time. You can't simply take a given level of parliamentary support for each party under one system and recalculate parliamentary representation if those same votes are applied in another.
I think that most PR systems provide a viable foothold for the initial establishment of small parties and then for those parties to grow upon securing initial parliamentary representation. As such most PR systems facilitate a fragmentation of political parties if the conditions are right. That is what you have seen in Israel over many decades now - 50 years ago the two largest parties there secured about 70% of the vote between them, most recently it was 41%. I think their electoral system has helped that. Conversely, I think FPTP is responsible for the fact that the UK is pretty well alone in Europe now in having no party of the far right with parliamentary representation.
I asked you about my preferences because you had chosen to assume that I preferred FPTP and gone on to use it as a straw man to dismiss my arguments against extreme forms of PR. It isn't FPTP. Rather it would be a majority bonus system with top up seats to the largest party or coalition of parties, not dissimilar to that in place in Greece, because by forcing alliances before not after an election it offers a clear choice to electors when they vote.
Arend Lijphart's work is quite old now, but it is actual research rather than just speculation. Well worth reading... if you're interested in this topic.
The 2019 European elections is an interesting case. Yes, I can see that you can make a case that it shows something about the effect of voting system. On the other hand, 2019 was a particularly odd time. European elections were different to Westminster election in terms of the voting system, but they were also different in other ways. It is difficult to separate out whether voters' behaviour was different because of the voting system or because of the different roles being elected. The 2019 election was particularly weird because we knew the UK MEPs wouldn't even be there for very long. They were the ultimate protest vote opportunity.
I agree that, "You can't simply take a given level of parliamentary support for each party under one system and recalculate parliamentary representation if those same votes are applied in another." Voting systems do impact on party systems. But I also think people substantially over-estimate how much voting systems impact. That's my point about Lijphart's work. He shows, for example, that voting system is correlated with the number of effective political parties, but he also shows that the correlation is relatively weak. I am sceptical when people insist that, following a switch to PR, that Labour, the Tories, LibDems and Greens would all split into multiple parties.
Another counter-example... Scottish politics involves PR for the Scottish Parliament and now STV for local elections. Has this led to any party fragmentation in Scotland? No. We see the same main parties as before. Alba came along but has singularly failed to prosper. Alba's main strength, ironically, is in the one bit of Scottish politics that is still FPTP, the House of Commons (although only through defection).
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I would love to see some modelling of how an FPTP election would come out in Israel. I've looked in the past and can't find anything.
The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great. An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense. The history of Israeli politics is complex. The differences between, say, Ra'am, UTJ and Yesh Atid have nothing to do with the use of a list system with a low electoral threshold. Switching to FPTP isn't going to make those differences disappear.
We often see electoral systems as changing party politics, but causality goes both ways. Electoral systems are often a response to the country's political culture. In other words, there is an argument that Israel doesn't have a fragmented political system because it uses a list system with a low electoral threshold. Rather, Israel has a list system with a low electoral threshold in response to a fragmented political system. Attempts to reform the Israeli system (higher threshold, more presidential) have been limited, perhaps because of that.
You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties". I note that at the last Israeli election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. At the last UK general election, 10 parties won seats in parliament. 10 is the same as 10.
"The work of Lijphart and others shows that voting systems do have an impact on politics and parties, but it's not that great." - A change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK, so I'm not prepared to accept that claim here and by implication elsewhere either.
"An analysis of Israeli politics that sees their voting system as explaining everything is obvious nonsense." - Since I used the word "facilitated" rather than "explaining everything", you are trying to create a straw man. There's a reasonable case to be made that alternative electoral systems - including some of the less strictly proportional PR alternatives - would have accorded extremists much less influence in Israel. One which you airily dismiss as "obvious nonsense".
"You talk of a "myriad of tiny parties"." - Fine, in the case of Israel I'll rephrase that to "a myriad of tiny parties with significant collective parliamentary representation between them".
You seem convinced as to the merits of STV. What electoral system are you assuming that would I favour if I could pick and choose?
What’s your evidence that a “change in the UK voting system would have a huge impact on the parties in the UK”? The obvious comparison is New Zealand. They switched from FPTP to PR and it didn’t have a huge impact on their party system. Have you read Lijphart’s 1984 “Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian & Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries”? Great book.
If there’s a case to be made that less proportionality would have reduced the influence of extremist parties in Israel, make it. Show us how different voting systems would have played out. The problem in Israel is that the extremist parties would do well under most voting systems. The moderate Labor are struggling to get over the threshold. The Religious Zionist Party, among the most extreme, are the third largest party.
I don’t know what your preferred electoral system is. If you want to tell us, tell us. There’s no need for rhetorical games.
So your claim that the form of electoral systems would have "no great" impact on political parties is based on a publication 40 years old, when politics generally was very different to what it is today. I think that rather justifies my scepticism.
No-one can "show" anything, because you are dealing with historical "what ifs". All that is available is a reasoned case.
Since you ask for evidence regarding the UK, I'll give you one example. The Labour and Conservative parties between them received 23% of the vote at the 2019 European elections, coming 3rd and 4th respectively. Immediately prior to those elections they were polling around 50% to 60% between them in polling for general elections conducted under FPTP, which was much reduced from the norm but was still a huge difference. That shows just how fragile the present two party system is, FPTP being the only thing preventing a major realignment of parties in the UK. For example, had we somehow changed to PR after the 2017 general election, 2018-19 would I think have seen a viable Labour split and a mass exodus of Conservatives to the Brexit Party, after which the UK political landscape today would be very different.
You dismiss the idea that voting patterns change with different electoral systems, both initially in response to the change in system and also over time. You can't simply take a given level of parliamentary support for each party under one system and recalculate parliamentary representation if those same votes are applied in another.
I think that most PR systems provide a viable foothold for the initial establishment of small parties and then for those parties to grow upon securing initial parliamentary representation. As such most PR systems facilitate a fragmentation of political parties if the conditions are right. That is what you have seen in Israel over many decades now - 50 years ago the two largest parties there secured about 70% of the vote between them, most recently it was 41%. I think their electoral system has helped that. Conversely, I think FPTP is responsible for the fact that the UK is pretty well alone in Europe now in having no party of the far right with parliamentary representation.
I asked you about my preferences because you had chosen to assume that I preferred FPTP and gone on to use it as a straw man to dismiss my arguments against extreme forms of PR. It isn't FPTP. Rather it would be a majority bonus system with top up seats to the largest party or coalition of parties, not dissimilar to that in place in Greece, because by forcing alliances before not after an election it offers a clear choice to electors when they vote.
contd.
Do PR systems provide a viable foothold for the initial establishment of small parties and then for those parties to grow upon securing initial parliamentary representation? I think they probably do to an extent. I would point out that FPTP often provides a foothold for the initial establishment of small parties. The difference is that FPTP rewards small parties who are geographically concentrated, rather than other sorts of small party. I also note that the party often polling the third best in the UK, Reform UK, has no MPs and almost no councillors. In the modern age of social media, actually getting people elected seems less important!
"I think FPTP is responsible for the fact that the UK is pretty well alone in Europe now in having no party of the far right with parliamentary representation." Well, I could quibble about Andrew Bridgen joining Reclaim or some of the DUP! I would note that Ireland and Malta, the two European countries that use STV, have no far right parties in parliament. Another European country without far right parliamentary representation is Slovenia (open list PR). Another is Iceland (open list PR). One could quibble about Latvia (open list PR), whether their right-wingers are far right. Ditto Lithuania (MMP).
I can't keep up with the Greek changes in electoral system. I thought they'd dropped the bonus system? I think there is something attractive about a bonus system. If you want an electoral system that gives a "clear" result, I think there are good ways of achieving that, better than FPTP, so we agree there. Israel kind of toyed with a not entirely dissimilar approach, whereby you have a parliamentary election, but the leader of the biggest party automatically gets presidential-esque powers. But they soon dropped the approach.
REMINDER: @RishiSunak has done two long interviews with me for @PiersUncensored as PM but @Keir_Starmer has repeatedly broken promises to me to come on the show. Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
Perhaps Sunak realises that an interview with Piers Anus on Tory TV isn't worth his while.
I presume you mean Starmer - easy mistake to make.
Horrible when someone posts something they think is really clever but it’s let down by a blooper. Like someone talking to you in the pub and you notice toilet roll stuck to their shoe
Give over - even I think its funny.
To go back to my fumbled point, why should Starmer bother? The only person Piers Moron ever interviews is himself. Its always about himself.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Plenty of graffiti in Pompeii and it still took another 400 years for the Roman Empire to fall.
I suppose this reactionary silliness shows us that - to paraphrase Clemenceau- you have gone from enfant terrible to old curmudgeon without the usual interval of mature reflection.
Or, I am right, and the west is now in a period of relative decline, which is unfortunately accelerating, with a risk it will tip into absolute decline
But then, to see that, you'd need a greater perspective: ie you'd need to travel the world a lot AND have an open mind, so I see the problem for quite a few PB-ers
I don't have a problem with relative decline - that's a good thing all round. But yes - the risk of absolute decline is very real, if we don't address the underlying issues of over-consumption, wealth concentration and capital stagnation, environmental destruction etc.
I am not sure what you mean by 'capital stagnation', but 3 out of 3 on misdiagnosing the issues and proposing to make the situation worse otherwise.
All of these things represent a failure to "do more with less", deliver productivity benefits, and free people up for more creative work.
The problems are very real, but they don't necessarily require the left-y-green-y shrink-the-economy solutions I guess you are imagining.
Noted. Perhaps you'll elucidate more if opportunities present
I'm assuming they would be in the realms of technology, workplace practices, the nature and application of investment incentives, scope and intent of regulation, competition, education & training etc.
In that clip Biden also refers to a "G7 meeting of all the NATO leaders" so he's even got that mixed up.
The uncomfortable truth is that it’s on Biden’s watch that Russia and Iran have been emboldened. Re-electing him might be the more dangerous option for the stability of the world.
Trump saluted Kim Jong Un. It's Trump that emboldens despots.
Feelings aren't facts.
It is a fact that Trump saluted Kim Jong Un. It is a fact that Trump emboldens despots.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
"Interesting opinions". Lol. There's that vivid self-image again. As usual the truth is rather different. The most interesting thing about most of your opinions is how on earth you arrived at them. We can blame "SpetsnaZ007" & Co, but you're not without responsibility yourself. You don't have to swallow it all.
REMINDER: @RishiSunak has done two long interviews with me for @PiersUncensored as PM but @Keir_Starmer has repeatedly broken promises to me to come on the show. Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
Perhaps Sunak realises that an interview with Piers Anus on Tory TV isn't worth his while.
I presume you mean Starmer - easy mistake to make.
Horrible when someone posts something they think is really clever but it’s let down by a blooper. Like someone talking to you in the pub and you notice toilet roll stuck to their shoe
Give over - even I think its funny.
To go back to my fumbled point, why should Starmer bother? The only person Piers Moron ever interviews is himself. Its always about himself.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
You can't vote for President Ursula von der Leyen, yet you seem mighty keen on the EU, and very snippy about the Brexit revolution that overthrew her power over us
She's president of the Commission, not of the EU, a post that doesn't exist, in the same way Pedro Sánchez is President of the Government of Spain (officially 'Presidente del Gobierno'), rather than President of Spain - also a post that doesn't exist. In the Spanish case, 'President' can be misleading to English speakers so 'Prime Minister of Spain' is commonly used as a culturally equivalent term to ensure clarity. Similarly the Head of the Commission should really be referred to as something other than 'President' which usually denotes a head of state in English.
To your point, the Spanish electorate elected Sanchez in the same way as the EU electorate elected von der Leyen - indirectly. They voted for representatives (EU Governments, Spanish MPs) who in turn elected them both.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
"Interesting opinions". Lol. There's that vivid self-image again. As usual the truth is rather different. The most interesting thing about most of your opinions is how on earth you arrived at them. We can blame "SpetsnaZ007" & Co, but you're not without responsibility yourself. You don't have to swallow it all.
Tenerife. TENERIFE
You are wealthy. And healthy. You could have gone anywhere. Anywhere in the world
You went to Tenerife. You chose Tenerife. You ARE Tenerife, and your opinions are Tenerife, and your mind is Tenerife, and Tenerife you will remain
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
He’ll always be the Prince of Wales to me, I mean for the first 44 years of my life that’s what he was.
When the media talk about the Prince of Wales today my first thought isn’t William, Duke of Cambridge, which incidentally is a much superior title than Prince of Wales.
Against better judgement clicked into that twitter. It said if you like this you should consider "SpetsnaZ007". Obliged and looked - it's a far right pro Putin account! Could have knocked me down with a feather.
I follow it because it is violently pro Palestinian and is often quite persuasive. I am certainly not pro Palestinian in the same way: but I want to know why people are
As I have explained to you many times, to understand the world you have to break out of your silo
I presume you only consume the Guardian and the BBC and you think that gives you a decent perspective of the world. I’m right: aren’t I?
The Beeb is the bedrock, yes, as it ought to be for everyone, but no not the Guardian. I read the Times on the 'business before pleasure' principle. So hardly a silo.
Re Twitter, with politics discourse, there's so much shit on there, esp with 'passionate' accounts, and I simply don't have the time to audit it down to what might be worth attention. When I'm not on here, or doing chores, I generally like to just sit and think. I can't do that with a head full of nonsense.
Providing the video isn't a fake, watching it is the substantive point - why bother reading the rest of the stuff?
I'm just not interested in stuff from "SpetsnaZ007". I truly believe I can prosper without it.
But you don't prosper, do you, not intellectually?
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
When you reach the point where you can’t understand where your opponents are coming from, or why, the problem is almost always with you, not them.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
You can't vote for President Ursula von der Leyen, yet you seem mighty keen on the EU, and very snippy about the Brexit revolution that overthrew her power over us
She's president of the Commission, not of the EU, a post that doesn't exist, in the same way Pedro Sánchez is President of the Government of Spain (officially 'Presidente del Gobierno'), rather than President of Spain - also a post that doesn't exist. In the Spanish case, 'President' can be misleading to English speakers so 'Prime Minister of Spain' is commonly used as a culturally equivalent term to ensure clarity. Similarly the Head of the Commission should really be referred to as something other than 'President' which usually denotes a head of state in English.
To your point, the Spanish electorate elected Sanchez in the same way as the EU electorate elected von der Leyen - indirectly. They voted for representatives (EU Governments, Spanish MPs) who in turn elected them both.
A slightly more regular process than that now used to appoint Conservative PMs.
I'm SO bored - it's a day of fasting and non drinking - the ultimate - I've done a transcript of what Biden says in that eloquent 25 second snippet. Here it is
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
Its bad.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
I'd worry less about Biden's mental health than his physical health. He looked old when he was standing waiting to receive the bodies of those soldiers killed in Jordan off the plane. Really old. More than his 81 years. Mentally, he seems capable of understanding issues and his instincts are fairly sound (we know this both from what he says when he can get his words in the right order, and from his actions). But he certainly has trouble speaking coherently too. If he does win a second term, I don't expect him to complete it.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
This thing with the King - I genuinely don't get it. I don't wish cancer on anyone and I hope he recovers. But my tolerance for the monarchy is done and I want us to move into the 21st century.
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
There would just be as much coverage if President Johnson or President Blair got cancer, another reason to keep our constitutional monarchy
But I could vote for a President. I can't vote for a King.
Hitler was elected, Putin was elected, Trump was elected, Bolsonaro was elected, Mugabe was elected. Half of the benefit of constitutional monarchy is it prevents another politician becoming head of state. Instead we leave party politics and politicians to the head of government, his Cabinet and Parliament.
Plus of course some Presidents are not directly elected by the public but indirectly elected by Parliament anyway and of course new monarchs have to be approved by Parliament's Accession Council
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset.
Republicans showing themselves up to be, again, the deeply unpleasant people we all know them to be.
Why snip the whole comment? I have sympathy for anyone diagnosed with cancer - I have been there myself. But I have never met the chap and he will be looked after with the best care that money can buy. I don't wish him ill, I'm just not upset. I was upset when Diana died - but only because cricket was cancelled. Never met her either.
I find the idea of being emotionally attached to celebrities and royals, even though we don't actually know them, to be rather wierd.
So you only ever emotion for those who you've met then? How about the emotion you just laid out for the entirely fictional 'Fred Bloggs' in your post?
It was a nasty little dig at the monarchy, and well you know it.
Chaz is lucky he got to see a doctor. Us mere mortals have to make do with a phonecall. Now, I wish the fella well, having a loved one diagnosed with cancer is about as bad a time as you can have and I hope he gets through it, but he's having the best treatment in the country, at the fastest pace and in the best places. He's not got to get to the hospital on public transport everyday for his radiotherapy, he's not having to wait for his tests to travel through the system and he's not sitting in a crowded waiting room, worrying about how his family are going to cope and prosper if he doesn't make it. Spare me the shouty little rants about evil Republicans. Life isn't fair, and Chaz has got the golden ticket. Isn't that enough for you?
It's "King Charles III", to you.
Fuck off.
No, fuck off yourself.
This place is filled with disrespectful little shits, like you.
You would have hated the Regency era even more, when everyone called the Prince Regent, later George IV, 'Prinny' and his brother, William IV, 'Silly Billy'. 'Chaz' is positively respectful in comparison.
It's "King Charles III".
After 52 years of calling him Prince Charles, I am unable to stop. I now call him King Prince Charles.
He’ll always be the Prince of Wales to me, I mean for the first 44 years of my life that’s what he was.
When the media talk about the Prince of Wales today my first thought isn’t William, Duke of Cambridge, which incidentally is a much superior title than Prince of Wales.
There was something reassuring about HMQ - the eternal monarch who seemed part of the scenery. Now she's gone what do we have? Discarded siblings, the wait forever never mind King, and the next generation down who are awful.
Too many TV servies get commissioned one series too many - or worse. The Crown is definitely one. We're bored of what is left of the main characters, and the shoutier new cast members brought in a few years ago just remind us how crap it is.
Comments
I think it was @AverageNinja who commented on the media wankfest coverage we have had since the announcement. It isn't patriotic, its pathetic. Nation shocked and all that - why would "old man gets cancer" be a shock - its sadly what happens too much.
What would be great is if we could use the King's diagnosis to (a) highlight the shocking cancer care that many of the rest of us get and (b) do something about it. *That* would be patriotism. And I think Charles would likely agree.
Remember how he once called Spike Milligan a "grovelling little shit?" - thats what he thinks of all this.
*For certain values of "dancing"
Much chuckling has been had.
Thank you @Casino_Royale
Hopefully Charlie boy will be on his way to health
But I don't know what you mean by 'voters act collectively to achieve what they want' - generally they are acting individually, and most of the time most of them don't get what they want.
One massive advantage of more proportional systems, is that people are much more likely to believe that their vote counts.
I think we can conclude that he’s easily wound up?
Personally I am sad to hear of the King's illness. I wish him a full and speedy recovery.
No-one can "show" anything, because you are dealing with historical "what ifs". All that is available is a reasoned case.
Since you ask for evidence regarding the UK, I'll give you one example. The Labour and Conservative parties between them received 23% of the vote at the 2019 European elections, coming 3rd and 4th respectively. Immediately prior to those elections they were polling around 50% to 60% between them in polling for general elections conducted under FPTP, which was much reduced from the norm but was still a huge difference. That shows just how fragile the present two party system is, FPTP being the only thing preventing a major realignment of parties in the UK. For example, had we somehow changed to PR after the 2017 general election, 2018-19 would I think have seen a viable Labour split and a mass exodus of Conservatives to the Brexit Party, after which the UK political landscape today would be very different.
You dismiss the idea that voting patterns change with different electoral systems, both initially in response to the change in system and also over time. You can't simply take a given level of parliamentary support for each party under one system and recalculate parliamentary representation if those same votes are applied in another.
I think that most PR systems provide a viable foothold for the initial establishment of small parties and then for those parties to grow upon securing initial parliamentary representation. As such most PR systems facilitate a fragmentation of political parties if the conditions are right. That is what you have seen in Israel over many decades now - 50 years ago the two largest parties there secured about 70% of the vote between them, most recently it was 41%. I think their electoral system has helped that. Conversely, I think FPTP is responsible for the fact that the UK is pretty well alone in Europe now in having no party of the far right with parliamentary representation.
I asked you about my preferences because you had chosen to assume that I preferred FPTP and gone on to use it as a straw man to dismiss my arguments against extreme forms of PR. It isn't FPTP. Rather it would be a majority bonus system with top up seats to the largest party or coalition of parties, not dissimilar to that in place in Greece, because by forcing alliances before not after an election it offers a clear choice to electors when they vote.
But people can sit and swivel if they want other people to show deference to monarchy as well. I’m happy for you to feel however you like. But Casino telling other people to be respectful is a bridge too far.
This is why you are a boring, misinformed, narrow-minded twat, with zero interesting new opinions (no offence)
I get that you are a retired accountant with a timid disposition, who once went to Rotterdam for a day, but you don't actually HAVE to be like this. You could expand your horizon beyond "the BBC" and "The Times" and maybe you'd find some interesting new stuff that makes you think, challenging your weary preconceptions. But no, easier to stick to the same uplifting music you always enjoy on the same outdoor terrace bars of thought, in the same Tenerife Hotel of life, until you die
Keep the military connections if you like, but scale it down a bit now. Otherwise, for a post-imperial country, there becomes a tinpot and theatrical aspect, that does not in fact so much encourage democracy.
I've decided the best way is to ignore it. Pretend it doesn't exist. And if somebody tries to force-feed me some, I don't go along with it. I keep my mouth shut tight and crane away.
It's not the only way. I could go wading in there, into that vast turdy ocean, and seek out the occasional piece of dairy milk chocolate. Go, "Hmm, yeah, ok I suppose that is a point" when I stumble across it (maybe once a month or so).
But think of the time I'd have to invest in that. I just don't have it. Despite being not at all busy I don't have it. Perhaps you do. Perhaps Leon does. Perhaps you guys are able to protect yourselves against loopy far right propaganda without applying my rather brutalist approach. In which case, hats off.
Though cooking pizza on a working engine.... hmmmmm....
"Out to lunch, I'm afraid."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6-wH-gVe04
ETA: Ah, I see. It's another war over a King Charles
And like I said in an earlier post - monarchy (and monarchism) deserves vulgarity as a response. The idea that a human being is somehow divinely chosen / genetically better to rule me deserves nothing but open disgust.
The great foreign policy calamities are all happening under Biden, from Afghanistan to Ukraine to the new Middle East omnifuck
Correlation does not equal causation. But we have a heck of a lot of correlation - and Biden is sending an awful lot of cash to Kyiv even as three MILLION people - a whole new record - illegally walk across his southern border in a single year
Can't your boss cope going toe-to-toe with me, @jessphillips ?
https://x.com/piersmorgan/status/1754874988572688469?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
@Heritage president flips the narrative and says “They’re leveraging the border crisis and the needs of our allies in Israel and Taiwan to extract more than $60 billion in additional unaccountable aid for Ukraine.”
This weird bill was THEIR IDEA
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1754865818670698536
The REPUBLICANS wanted to link the border to Ukraine. Not the Biden administration. Not the Democrats. They have been making that argument for months.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1754866192945189015
Is there some sort of alert that can be set up so we can be notified on our mobiles when this happens please? Don't want to miss the next one.
The story is available from more respectable sources.
Biden appears to mix up Macron with Mitterrand, French president who died in 1996*
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4449805-biden-appears-to-mix-up-macron-with-french-president-mitterrand-who-died-in-1996/
(* I like the way they have to explain. to an audience of US political nerds. who Mitterand was.)
Then again I think if he wasn’t King it would be just as disrespectful to call someone by a nickname they don’t use themselves to report such sad personal news, especially if you dislike them
https://x.com/keir_starmer/status/1754609476294918227?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
As for Starmer what possible benefit would he get from going on Talk TV? You realise he is currently 20% ahead in the polls or had that passed some of you by?
Perhaps there could be some sort of email alert sound file, with rcs adding a few seconds from a world war II siren, every time Casino and others are about to enter a royal stramash, or Leon is about to sit down to one of his boozier lunches, and wreak his vengeance on the woke.
The speech of Joe Biden, 46th President of the USA, to the American people, 5th February 2024
"You know, ri - right - right right after I was elected, I went to what they call a... G7 meeting and all the... NATO leaders, and it was in, it was in.. sou - south of... England, and I sat down and I said "America's back", and Mitterand from Germany, I mean, from France, looked at me and said Uh. Said, said "you know, why - why - ha- how long you back for", and I looked at him, and the uh the Chancellor of Germany said "what would did you say Mister President"
It's speeches like this that can inspire entire nations to renew themselves. Anyone who was there will speak of it to their spellbound grandchildren
In other Leon news, FDR is responsible for WWII.
The idea that people we vote for then appoint people best able to carry out tasks seems sensible to me. Most of our elected ministers don't have a scooby do about the ministries they run.
The people that appoint the EU president are voted for by the people and the president is approved by a parliament that is voted for by the people. That is good enough for me. It is delegated democracy.
The alternative is Trump.
Is worse.
America is in deep deep shit. But the alternative to Biden - who you keep ramping by implication - would be far far worse. No matter how bimbling Biden gets, it is better than bimbling and demented as Trump is.
The 2019 European elections is an interesting case. Yes, I can see that you can make a case that it shows something about the effect of voting system. On the other hand, 2019 was a particularly odd time. European elections were different to Westminster election in terms of the voting system, but they were also different in other ways. It is difficult to separate out whether voters' behaviour was different because of the voting system or because of the different roles being elected. The 2019 election was particularly weird because we knew the UK MEPs wouldn't even be there for very long. They were the ultimate protest vote opportunity.
I agree that, "You can't simply take a given level of parliamentary support for each party under one system and recalculate parliamentary representation if those same votes are applied in another." Voting systems do impact on party systems. But I also think people substantially over-estimate how much voting systems impact. That's my point about Lijphart's work. He shows, for example, that voting system is correlated with the number of effective political parties, but he also shows that the correlation is relatively weak. I am sceptical when people insist that, following a switch to PR, that Labour, the Tories, LibDems and Greens would all split into multiple parties.
Another counter-example... Scottish politics involves PR for the Scottish Parliament and now STV for local elections. Has this led to any party fragmentation in Scotland? No. We see the same main parties as before. Alba came along but has singularly failed to prosper. Alba's main strength, ironically, is in the one bit of Scottish politics that is still FPTP, the House of Commons (although only through defection).
t.b.c.
Do PR systems provide a viable foothold for the initial establishment of small parties and then for those parties to grow upon securing initial parliamentary representation? I think they probably do to an extent. I would point out that FPTP often provides a foothold for the initial establishment of small parties. The difference is that FPTP rewards small parties who are geographically concentrated, rather than other sorts of small party. I also note that the party often polling the third best in the UK, Reform UK, has no MPs and almost no councillors. In the modern age of social media, actually getting people elected seems less important!
"I think FPTP is responsible for the fact that the UK is pretty well alone in Europe now in having no party of the far right with parliamentary representation." Well, I could quibble about Andrew Bridgen joining Reclaim or some of the DUP! I would note that Ireland and Malta, the two European countries that use STV, have no far right parties in parliament. Another European country without far right parliamentary representation is Slovenia (open list PR). Another is Iceland (open list PR). One could quibble about Latvia (open list PR), whether their right-wingers are far right. Ditto Lithuania (MMP).
I can't keep up with the Greek changes in electoral system. I thought they'd dropped the bonus system? I think there is something attractive about a bonus system. If you want an electoral system that gives a "clear" result, I think there are good ways of achieving that, better than FPTP, so we agree there. Israel kind of toyed with a not entirely dissimilar approach, whereby you have a parliamentary election, but the leader of the biggest party automatically gets presidential-esque powers. But they soon dropped the approach.
To go back to my fumbled point, why should Starmer bother? The only person Piers Moron ever interviews is himself. Its always about himself.
Kinabalu, I think is more led by his moral sense.
To your point, the Spanish electorate elected Sanchez in the same way as the EU electorate elected von der Leyen - indirectly. They voted for representatives (EU Governments, Spanish MPs) who in turn elected them both.
You are wealthy. And healthy. You could have gone anywhere. Anywhere in the world
You went to Tenerife. You chose Tenerife. You ARE Tenerife, and your opinions are Tenerife, and your mind is Tenerife, and Tenerife you will remain
When the media talk about the Prince of Wales today my first thought isn’t William, Duke of Cambridge, which incidentally is a much superior title than Prince of Wales.
On the other hand, Trump appears relatively fit (though who knows the state of him inside), but is lost in a world of his own delusions, arrogance, fantasies and bitterness. But with people struggling and wanting someone to blame, he provides plenty of targets. It's more likely than not that he wins.
Plus of course some Presidents are not directly elected by the public but indirectly elected by Parliament anyway and of course new monarchs have to be approved by Parliament's Accession Council
Too many TV servies get commissioned one series too many - or worse. The Crown is definitely one. We're bored of what is left of the main characters, and the shoutier new cast members brought in a few years ago just remind us how crap it is.
The TV series isn't much better either.
Decision.
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1754883119717462337