Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Michael Gove is right – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2023 in General
Michael Gove is right – politicalbetting.com

Which issues would most determine how Britons would vote in a General Election? (14 May)The Economy 60%Healthcare 57%Immigration 27%Education 25%Housing 20%The Environment 19%Policing/Crime 18%Taxation 16%Welfare 16%Pensions 16% pic.twitter.com/XWuHE5F1MY

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 48,909
    Can you feel a little Gove? :lol:
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    FPT
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    The reality is that if the economy was good and hadn't been failing for 13 years woke issues may have some merit.

    The problem is that the economy is in a hole, nothing Labour has done or thinks can be blamed for that fact. It is Tory through and through.

    Therefore anyone trying to pretend penises matter for the electorate at large is crazy.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Surprised to see taxation so low in that list
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Cultural issues also turn off your base, see: Blue Wall
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,080
    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2023

    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Cultural issues also turn off your base, see: Blue Wall
    It's important to find a sweet spot. Cultural stuff will never rate highly in these prompts, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant, if people are at least receptive to you. If they think you are actively harmful on the stuff they do list, however, then even if they agree with you on cultural stuff if won't over come. You need a tighter contest for the culture stuff to work. Edit: I see you've made a post making basically the same point - if things were less crappy, it would play much more effectively.
    Farooq said:

    Surprised to see taxation so low in that list

    I suspect people think 'the economy' pretty much covers that, even though taxation is listed as a separate option.

    That is the limitation with these sorts of polls, since am I to believe taxation is not an important issue for people because it is pretty low down on the list? That's why the 'people didn't list the EU as an important issue' argument was always a nonsense, since people did care about it once they were asked specifically about it. Likewise if you asked specifically on taxation people would show they have very strong views on its importance.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited May 2023
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Cultural issues also turn off your base, see: Blue Wall
    It's important to find a sweet spot. Cultural stuff will never rate highly in these prompts, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant, if people are at least receptive to you. If they think you are actively harmful on the stuff they do list, however, then even if they agree with you on cultural stuff if won't over come. You need a tighter contest for the culture stuff to work.
    Farooq said:

    Surprised to see taxation so low in that list

    I suspect people think 'the economy' pretty much covers that, even though taxation is listed as a separate option.

    That is the limitation with these sorts of polls, since am I to believe taxation is not an important issue for people because it is pretty low down on the list? That's why the 'people didn't list the EU as an important issue' argument was always a nonsense, since people did care about it once they were asked specifically about it. Likewise if you asked specifically on taxation people would show they have very strong views on its importance.
    I actually like this kind of survey. When you vote you have to weigh up all this kind of thing and distil it into a single X on the ballot. Whilst people might care about this or that in isolation, if it's not in your top three priorities, is it going to make any difference to your vote.

    One of the reasons I'd like to see PR is because you'd get more nuance. Want an economically liberal pro-Europe party that's socially conservative? Well, you aren't going to get one under FPTP. Under PR you're much more likely to find the right combination of flavours for your policy tastes.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Ok.

    Verstappen face mask - check.

    Welsh rugby shirt - check.

    Pizza with pineapple on - check.

    Route to Sheffield - laid in.


    ENGAGE...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,008
    "... it is absolutely critical that we don’t deny biological reality or that we don’t feel that we should apologise for aspects of our past, which are genuine sources of pride."

    Sounds like Gove is trying to have his dog whistles and eat them.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
    If you had to suggest one thing?

    Where we are isn't so bad anyway. Perhaps the end state of wise government looks like this? (I don't believe it does, but I see no opportunities of gain in the policies of anybody).
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    TBF, Gove is right though.

    Just as he was actually right about many of the issues in education.

    It was his solutions that were the problem..
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080

    The reality is that if the economy was good and hadn't been failing for 13 years woke issues may have some merit.

    The problem is that the economy is in a hole, nothing Labour has done or thinks can be blamed for that fact. It is Tory through and through.

    Therefore anyone trying to pretend penises matter for the electorate at large is crazy.

    The Conservative problem is that they can't talk about the bread and butter issues. They have been in charge since 2010 and the economy, public services, even control of immigration aren't going very well. So from a purely business point of view changing the subject and talking red meat culture wars makes a dismal sort of sense.

    That doesn't stop it being alarming how much pleasure some on the right get from those topics.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
    You probably need to be a bit more specific about exactly what you'd burn down change. If it's outside what those four parties are offering then it's likely to be completely insane.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    ydoethur said:

    Ok.

    Verstappen face mask - check.

    Welsh rugby shirt - check.

    Pizza with pineapple on - check.

    Route to Sheffield - laid in.


    ENGAGE...

    Pineapple is so F1 - it has low density when dried, and yet is very strong. Also very tasty on pizza.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Cultural issues also turn off your base, see: Blue Wall
    It's important to find a sweet spot. Cultural stuff will never rate highly in these prompts, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant, if people are at least receptive to you. If they think you are actively harmful on the stuff they do list, however, then even if they agree with you on cultural stuff if won't over come. You need a tighter contest for the culture stuff to work.
    Farooq said:

    Surprised to see taxation so low in that list

    I suspect people think 'the economy' pretty much covers that, even though taxation is listed as a separate option.

    That is the limitation with these sorts of polls, since am I to believe taxation is not an important issue for people because it is pretty low down on the list? That's why the 'people didn't list the EU as an important issue' argument was always a nonsense, since people did care about it once they were asked specifically about it. Likewise if you asked specifically on taxation people would show they have very strong views on its importance.
    I actually like this kind of survey. When you vote you have to weigh up all this kind of thing and distil it into a single X on the ballot. Whilst people might care about this or that in isolation, if it's not in your top three priorities, is it going to make any difference to your vote.

    One of the reasons I'd like to see PR is because you'd get more nuance. Want an economically liberal pro-Europe party that's socially conservative? Well, you aren't going to get one under FPTP. Under PR you're much more likely to find the right combination of flavours for your policy tastes.
    I like this kind of survey too, I think it is useful, but I also think people can have an agenda and 'interpret' them too far and try to claim anything that is not high up doesn't matter at all, all 'see, no one cares about that stuff'.

    Here's a scenario - if someone doesn't see a great deal of difference between the major parties (correctly or not) on their top 3 priorities, then other issies will come into play for them.

    People might not care as much, and so you can be reasonably confident if the issues you are strong on are aligned with the public that you will do well, but that doesn't mean people don't care at all on the other stuff and so shouldn't be assumed to be on board for anything else you decide to do - the sort of thing where parties pretend their whole manifesto has been endorsed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Jesus, wouldn't want to be either of these groups.

    Unbelievably, there are still civilians, even children trapped in Bakhmut. Some are desperate to escape. Others are what Ukrainians refer to as "zhduny," meaning "the waiting ones," those waiting for Russia. I also know a few people are left in Ivanivske, where I used to teach.
    https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1660290654583283712?cxt=HHwWgICzpbjjxIouAAAA
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 14,080
    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
    Much like Gove, in many ways.

    After all, if you don't want culture wars, why back Badenoch?

    (Actually, a 900 word op-ed on why KB is the bee's knees and SB isn't would be an interesting exercise for someone.)
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
    He ended the idea that you could just put a capable man in the jobs of great office and expect results. He ushered in the age of the incapable man,
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2023
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
    He ended the idea that you could just put a capable man in the jobs of great office and expect results. He ushered in the age of the incapable man,
    I knew my time would come eventually.

    It's more representative as well to have incapable people running things, and that's all the rage now rght?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
    Much like Gove, in many ways.

    After all, if you don't want culture wars, why back Badenoch?

    (Actually, a 900 word op-ed on why KB is the bee's knees and SB isn't would be an interesting exercise for someone.)
    Suella's thick; Kemi isn't.

    4 words. Lacking nuance, but it's a solid outline.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    Omnium said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
    If you had to suggest one thing?

    Where we are isn't so bad anyway. Perhaps the end state of wise government looks like this? (I don't believe it does, but I see no opportunities of gain in the policies of anybody).
    If I had to suggest one thing this would be it

    A cross party working group that looks at the figures producing a table of non infrastructure things. Then a general poll using av on what people in the country want. People can vote 1,2,3,4 etc until what they have voted for comes to the total of tax revenue

    The table would be (with an example figures made up)

    This is what the state does === This is how much it costs to fund that properly

    Free nursery places === 5billion

    Then drop the things that are lowest in votes until Tax revenue balances expenditure
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 9,232
    To give the impression that the Tories are in favour of some kind minimum-child policy is borderline insane. I have some very conservative elderly female relatives; try telling them that they betrayed their civic duty by not knocking out a sufficient number of kids earlier in life. Moreover, fecund girls with huge broods they can't afford are the stuff of many a Daily Mail modern-Britain horror story. The British Right has seriously misjudged here.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ok.

    Verstappen face mask - check.

    Welsh rugby shirt - check.

    Pizza with pineapple on - check.

    Route to Sheffield - laid in.


    ENGAGE...

    Pineapple is so F1 - it has low density when dried, and yet is very strong. Also very tasty on pizza.
    Some of us have taken advantage of F1 having an unschuled weekend off, to watch the Nürburgring 24 hour race - which has been totally bonkers as always. How the drivers can be both so fast yet so disciplined, over such a long race, defies belief.

    The winning team, half an hour ago, was the Ferrari 296 #30, run by the husband of the late Sabine Schmitz, famous lady ‘Ring driver. They smashed the record for number of laps in the race.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    I'm not sure Gove is right about this but I would like to think he is.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542
    ..
    kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Cultural issues also turn off your base, see: Blue Wall
    It's important to find a sweet spot. Cultural stuff will never rate highly in these prompts, but that doesn't mean they are unimportant, if people are at least receptive to you. If they think you are actively harmful on the stuff they do list, however, then even if they agree with you on cultural stuff if won't over come. You need a tighter contest for the culture stuff to work. Edit: I see you've made a post making basically the same point - if things were less crappy, it would play much more effectively.
    Farooq said:

    Surprised to see taxation so low in that list

    I suspect people think 'the economy' pretty much covers that, even though taxation is listed as a separate option.

    That is the limitation with these sorts of polls, since am I to believe taxation is not an important issue for people because it is pretty low down on the list? That's why the 'people didn't list the EU as an important issue' argument was always a nonsense, since people did care about it once they were asked specifically about it. Likewise if you asked specifically on taxation people would show they have very strong views on its importance.
    Personally I don't vote on issues and I suspect many other people are the same.

    I vote on who I think has the best offer, on who I have most confidence in, and partly on values.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    We've had the same policies since 1983? Whilst I agree that Thatcherism was transformational (and mainly in a bad way) I wouldn't blame it for all our current woes.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,583
    Off topic

    It's lucky for Leeds that their ride or die game is Spurs at home. I might have some of that
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited May 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
    If you had to suggest one thing?

    Where we are isn't so bad anyway. Perhaps the end state of wise government looks like this? (I don't believe it does, but I see no opportunities of gain in the policies of anybody).
    If I had to suggest one thing this would be it

    A cross party working group that looks at the figures producing a table of non infrastructure things. Then a general poll using av on what people in the country want. People can vote 1,2,3,4 etc until what they have voted for comes to the total of tax revenue

    The table would be (with an example figures made up)

    This is what the state does === This is how much it costs to fund that properly

    Free nursery places === 5billion

    Then drop the things that are lowest in votes until Tax revenue balances expenditure
    Who decides what's on the list?
    Who decides how much each thing costs? (Spoiler: you can't. Policy decisions interact profoundly and affect the costs and revenues of adjacent policy decisions)
    How many things would be on the list (I'm imagining hundreds)?
    How are decisions that affect the tax revenue accounted for? If a measure is revenue positive is it automatically in?
    What happens when circumstances change and the cost of a policy goes up or down? New vote, or someone decides. Who? When?

    Totally unworkable.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    This comment for better or for worse has an American flavour to it.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Off topic

    It's lucky for Leeds that their ride or die game is Spurs at home. I might have some of that

    They could win and still finish 19th. Only Leicester have it in their own hands (for now)
  • GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 2,995
    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    He has the good journalist’s ability to grasp the fundamentals of a given issue and apply superficial logic to put forward solutions. He is certainly intelligent.

    But: his political instincts are iffy, his strategic nous is off and he struggles with the compromise and diplomacy required to navigate complex policy change (most notably at Education, where his certainty of his own rightness - egged on by Classic, Gibbo et al - led to ultimate defeat by ‘the blob’).

    He is also susceptible to the allure of the alt-right and cannot help but scheme and meddle, that and suggestions about his recreational activity make me question his morality too.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    I mean, if you want to design a system of government that explicitly and deliberately does away with any possibility of joined up thinking and produces an incoherent mess by design then by jove @Pagan2 has nailed it.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,146
    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
    Much like Gove, in many ways.

    After all, if you don't want culture wars, why back Badenoch?

    (Actually, a 900 word op-ed on why KB is the bee's knees and SB isn't would be an interesting exercise for someone.)
    Suella's thick; Kemi isn't.

    4 words. Lacking nuance, but it's a solid outline.
    Let me add some nuance: Kemi sucks up to fascists.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
    Much like Gove, in many ways.

    After all, if you don't want culture wars, why back Badenoch?

    (Actually, a 900 word op-ed on why KB is the bee's knees and SB isn't would be an interesting exercise for someone.)
    Suella's thick; Kemi isn't.

    4 words. Lacking nuance, but it's a solid outline.
    Let me add some nuance: Kemi sucks up to fascists.
    Doesn't Suella?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 24,583
    Farooq said:

    Off topic

    It's lucky for Leeds that their ride or die game is Spurs at home. I might have some of that

    They could win and still finish 19th. Only Leicester have it in their own hands (for now)
    It was more a comment on the state of Spurs at this present.moment in time than Big Sam's dirty Leeds.

    It makes not a jot to me who the two out of three are. Leicester are a midlands club, so I would prefer them to stay up. It would be a shame if Everton lost their top flight longevity status and Leeds? Well who cares about Leeds? really?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
    If you had to suggest one thing?

    Where we are isn't so bad anyway. Perhaps the end state of wise government looks like this? (I don't believe it does, but I see no opportunities of gain in the policies of anybody).
    If I had to suggest one thing this would be it

    A cross party working group that looks at the figures producing a table of non infrastructure things. Then a general poll using av on what people in the country want. People can vote 1,2,3,4 etc until what they have voted for comes to the total of tax revenue

    The table would be (with an example figures made up)

    This is what the state does === This is how much it costs to fund that properly

    Free nursery places === 5billion

    Then drop the things that are lowest in votes until Tax revenue balances expenditure
    Who decides what's on the list?
    Who decides how much each thing costs? (Spoiler: you can't. Policy decisions interact profoundly and affect the costs and revenues of adjacent policy decisions)
    How many things would be on the list (I'm imagining hundreds)?
    How are decisions that affect the tax revenue accounted for? If a measure is revenue positive is it automatically in?
    What happens when circumstances change and the cost of a policy goes up or down? New vote, or someone decides. Who? When?

    Totally unworkable.
    Have it your own way do nothing and then wonder in 20 to 40 years why people have lost faith in democracy. People already are and its going to accelerate when there are no sensible parties to vote for only ones that believe piling debt onto future generations is sustainable. You think boomers are hated? Our current generations are going to be even more hated as we can see the lunacy but didn't stop it.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    Farooq said:

    I mean, if you want to design a system of government that explicitly and deliberately does away with any possibility of joined up thinking and produces an incoherent mess by design then by jove @Pagan2 has nailed it.

    Oh like we have that now don't be naive there is no joined up thinking in our politics currently just tribal ranting wankers like you
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg's political career explained. He is unfailingly polite.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    I mean, if you want to design a system of government that explicitly and deliberately does away with any possibility of joined up thinking and produces an incoherent mess by design then by jove @Pagan2 has nailed it.

    Oh like we have that now don't be naive there is no joined up thinking in our politics currently just tribal ranting wankers like you
    "the current government is incoherent, so let's make it impossible for any future government to be coherent"

    mad
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,442
    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Not really. The Tories switched quickly from Cameron/Osbourne nicey nicey stuff to appealing to an older back to the 1950s demographic. Thats left them with two distinct bases, so if they go hard on culture either way they lose support from one or the other.

    The Tories would have more chance turning out their wider base by doing as Gove suggests, although it is probably too late now.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,146
    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
    If you had to suggest one thing?

    Where we are isn't so bad anyway. Perhaps the end state of wise government looks like this? (I don't believe it does, but I see no opportunities of gain in the policies of anybody).
    If I had to suggest one thing this would be it

    A cross party working group that looks at the figures producing a table of non infrastructure things. Then a general poll using av on what people in the country want. People can vote 1,2,3,4 etc until what they have voted for comes to the total of tax revenue

    The table would be (with an example figures made up)

    This is what the state does === This is how much it costs to fund that properly

    Free nursery places === 5billion

    Then drop the things that are lowest in votes until Tax revenue balances expenditure
    While I am supportive of the idea of citizens’ juries being more involved in political decision-making and democracy in general, there are some challenges here.

    We don’t know what things cost. Sure, you can do a basic calculation of the initial implementation or running cost, but we have these policies because we think they benefit the country. The NHS costs £xxx, but having a healthy workforce increases productivity, having a state safety net increase labour mobility and entrepreneurship. These make money. How do we factor those in?

    We can make estimates, but generally those estimates reflect political views.

    Another challenge is that direct democracy can falter because people aren’t sufficiently knowledgeable about how things work. That’s why we have representative democracy.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 20,442
    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    Has anyone told malcolm......
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,146
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    viewcode said:

    IanB2 said:

    Gove is too intelligent to be a conservative.

    I think that's unfair: of the post WWII Con PMs and LOTO, only, say, Douglas-Hume, IDS and - possibly - Heath were not very bright IRL, and IDS at least tried.

    Heath was extremely intelligent. Top of the Civil Service exam, for example.

    He had shocking judgment, which is a different problem.
    Much like Gove, in many ways.

    After all, if you don't want culture wars, why back Badenoch?

    (Actually, a 900 word op-ed on why KB is the bee's knees and SB isn't would be an interesting exercise for someone.)
    Suella's thick; Kemi isn't.

    4 words. Lacking nuance, but it's a solid outline.
    Let me add some nuance: Kemi sucks up to fascists.
    Doesn't Suella?
    Does one need to suck up to something one already is?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    I mean, if you want to design a system of government that explicitly and deliberately does away with any possibility of joined up thinking and produces an incoherent mess by design then by jove @Pagan2 has nailed it.

    Oh like we have that now don't be naive there is no joined up thinking in our politics currently just tribal ranting wankers like you
    "the current government is incoherent, so let's make it impossible for any future government to be coherent"

    mad
    You think a lib dem, labour or snp government is going to be any more coherent? Simple answer is no they won't they will pander and pimp policies for votes in 5 years time with no concern for 50 years down the line.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,146
    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    It’s a good soundbite, but it’s demonstrably not true. Voters frequently vote against largesse from the public treasury.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,956
    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    I’ve always found a sense of humour works the best.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    It’s a good soundbite, but it’s demonstrably not true. Voters frequently vote against largesse from the public treasury.
    Only largesse applied to people that is not them, hence why we still have the triple lock and policies leading to spiralling housing costs. The vote against largesse only applies when those receiving it isn't enough to vote in a government.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688

    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    I’ve always found a sense of humour works the best.
    Ah so, the shoes!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    No it doesn't, and in any case the applicability of the quotation is not clear. We might be in danger of following Russia and other countries into a state of kleptocracy where it is not the people but the ruling class who "can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury".
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    edited May 2023
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Omnium said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    FPT

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Tres said:

    On Braverman, I think a few people are conflating two separate stories:

    1. According to William Wragg, when Braverman was attending an induction session led by the expenses people (IPSA), she asked if, hypothetically, an MP who was caught speeding while carrying out their duties could claim the fine back on expenses. (Wragg is standing by his story).
    2. Last night's story.

    Although 1. is old news, it seems to me even more damning than 2. How stupid is she?

    If the only reason you are rushing is to meet a division bell, caused by a stupid opposition amendment the Speaker should never have allowed in the first place, why not ask? What actually is the harm in asking?

    Can’t you people see how well Braverman is coming out of this? Is she not coming across as the lawyer you would want to fight your corner? or coming across as exactly the person you would want to negotiate with the French on the tax payer’s behalf? You would rather send Yvette Cooper into a tough ball negotiation on the tax payers behalf?
    Personally I'd want a lawyer who understood the law. YMMV
    I want a lawyer who understands the law
    I want a structural engineer who understand Newton
    I want an accountant who can add - and not stuff any expense he doesn’t instantly understand on a random project.

    There is a trend here. Can’t quite put my finger on it…
    All of a sudden, I want to commission an opinion poll. Something like:

    "Imagine these two politicians. Which of them would you prefer to be running the country?

    A. Someone competent whose ideology you oppose.

    B. Someone incompetent whose ideology you share."

    (And I know it's never quite as black or white as that, but you get the idea.)
    It's a good question actually. I'm increasingly of the view that what matters most is competence and integrity and compassion. I happen to think you find these - esp the latter two - more on the left of politics these days than the right but that's by the by.

    The point is, these are objectively good and important qualities. Any government that is full of them will be a good government and any government lacking them - those since 2016 being a prime example - will be a bad one. This is true regardless of their politics.

    When it comes to ideology/values and policy it's all a matter of brain chemistry and opinion. I have my values that some share and others don't. I have policies I'd like to see and some would agree with them whilst others wouldn't. The same goes for everyone else, with varying degrees of overlap.

    So following this train of thought it's far more important who is in government (the people) rather than what the government believes in or does. Because if you have able honest kind individuals running things there's virtually no chance of them making the country a worse place and a very good chance of them making it a better one.
    Come back and repeat that after starmer fucks up the country even more than it already is, not because he is labour but because both tories and labour are following the same stupidity of the last 30 years.....the state will do more and we will borrow to fund it.

    Both parties need to be put down, lib dems too.
    God you're a miserable git
    God you are a delusional git supporting the same parties pursuing the same policies they have done for the last 40 years which have led to where we are. Now for some reason you think those same policies are going to suddenly reverse the trends rather than dig us further into a hole. When do you consider we should turn round and say "You know what we have tried this for 4 decades and it isn't fucking working perhaps we should try something else"

    Stop being stupid and part of the problem
    you have no idea which party I'll support at the next election
    I don't care which party you will support, lib dems, cons, lab, snp have no answers they are all parties of lets do more of the same things we have done for the last 40 years.

    Its time to do something else. That is my point here. You accuse me of being a miserable git because I don't think that more of the same is going to change a thing and is just going to be leading us further into decline.

    At least I realise we need to do something different when trying the same thing over and over is not working. Which is why I say you are part of the problem. You pretty evidently are a supporter of one of the parties on offer and I don't really care which as a vote for them is a vote for more of the same
    If you had to suggest one thing?

    Where we are isn't so bad anyway. Perhaps the end state of wise government looks like this? (I don't believe it does, but I see no opportunities of gain in the policies of anybody).
    If I had to suggest one thing this would be it

    A cross party working group that looks at the figures producing a table of non infrastructure things. Then a general poll using av on what people in the country want. People can vote 1,2,3,4 etc until what they have voted for comes to the total of tax revenue

    The table would be (with an example figures made up)

    This is what the state does === This is how much it costs to fund that properly

    Free nursery places === 5billion

    Then drop the things that are lowest in votes until Tax revenue balances expenditure
    Who decides what's on the list?
    Who decides how much each thing costs? (Spoiler: you can't. Policy decisions interact profoundly and affect the costs and revenues of adjacent policy decisions)
    How many things would be on the list (I'm imagining hundreds)?
    How are decisions that affect the tax revenue accounted for? If a measure is revenue positive is it automatically in?
    What happens when circumstances change and the cost of a policy goes up or down? New vote, or someone decides. Who? When?

    Totally unworkable.
    Have it your own way do nothing and then wonder in 20 to 40 years why people have lost faith in democracy. People already are and its going to accelerate when there are no sensible parties to vote for only ones that believe piling debt onto future generations is sustainable. You think boomers are hated? Our current generations are going to be even more hated as we can see the lunacy but didn't stop it.
    The thing is, your idea of "sensible" is demonstrably out of kilter with the great majority of this country. Your own powerful feelings of rightness pale into nothing compared to the fact that people turn up to vote for these mainstream parties in their tens of millions.

    Those parties are, between them, delivering what people want.
    Whenever people claim that we're coming to a crisis in the coming decades, what they really mean is that their view is so far off to one side they can't connect with anything in the mainstream.

    But that's a you problem.

    As for debt being unsustainable... the markets have got you covered there. If there was no faith in future governments being able to service debts incurred now, those debts would be prohibitively expensive. And they aren't. So again, it's you versus tens of thousands of people who do this sort of thing as a job and get paid well for it too.

    Now, outlier individuals like you can sometimes be right against the prevailing opinions. But does that apply in this case. Are you a pundit of rare vintage? Probably not, since you can't handle the merest challenge to your idea. I offered specific criticisms to your idea, and you decided not to engage with them at all. I suspect you don't have any answers at all. That's because you're not a savant, you're just some dafty.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,840
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    I mean, if you want to design a system of government that explicitly and deliberately does away with any possibility of joined up thinking and produces an incoherent mess by design then by jove @Pagan2 has nailed it.

    Oh like we have that now don't be naive there is no joined up thinking in our politics currently just tribal ranting wankers like you
    You're not confusing him with me, are you?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    Omnium said:

    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    I’ve always found a sense of humour works the best.
    Ah so, the shoes!
    There had to be some explanation. I was racking my brains... :smiley:
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,926
    kinabalu said:

    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg's political career explained. He is unfailingly polite.
    Yes but his is a bullying, deeply mannered 'politeness' that he wields like a sword in the class war on behalf of privilege and the forces of reaction. It's quite unpleasant to witness.
    Despite the lack of any obvious talent, JRM was near the top of government for years and was never a hate-figure. Politeness is key.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    No it doesn't, and in any case the applicability of the quotation is not clear. We might be in danger of following Russia and other countries into a state of kleptocracy where it is not the people but the ruling class who "can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury".
    I prefer democracy personally, but we need a grown up democracy for it to survive else I fear we will end up with exactly what you say or even worse. I am not posting because I want the end of democracy I am posting because I don't and think we have to somehow fix things so we don't keep spending the wealth of future generations to keep our democracy as it currently is going.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    kinabalu said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    I mean, if you want to design a system of government that explicitly and deliberately does away with any possibility of joined up thinking and produces an incoherent mess by design then by jove @Pagan2 has nailed it.

    Oh like we have that now don't be naive there is no joined up thinking in our politics currently just tribal ranting wankers like you
    You're not confusing him with me, are you?
    No you aren't actually a ranter, you do have a blind spot for believing that if you change a system people won't just adapt to keep what you perceive as advantage. An example is abolishing private schools where you don't believe that those people wont either send their kids to schools abroad if very rich or buy up properties in good school cachement area's to push poorer people out of the good school cachement areas if medium rich, or choose to employ private tutors if only slightly rich.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    It'd be nice to think so, but I'm not sure history bears it out.

    What it does put me in mind of is Jim Hacker being advised not to angrily or sarcastically rage against the opposition.

    "Those are the bits the party likes"

    "The party will vote for you anyway".


    Bombast and vituperation works far more than we'd prefer to acknowledge however.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    "Paul Embery
    @PaulEmbery

    The Ukrainian parliament building? No, it’s City Hall, Norwich, England. Forgive me, but I just find it incredibly weird."

    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1660238823337369600
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years.

    We may still have a way to go.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 18,230
    edited May 2023
    This Sunday's Perun is out
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I guess its likely that most democracies have failed. (No idea if this is true, but it seems likely)
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Andy_JS said:

    "Paul Embery
    @PaulEmbery

    The Ukrainian parliament building? No, it’s City Hall, Norwich, England. Forgive me, but I just find it incredibly weird."

    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1660238823337369600

    Do you find it weird, Andy? If so, why? Solidarity is not just something scraggly trots, fossilised union reps and millenial communists talk about, it can be a real thing.

    Also, never let us down, Twitter

  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    Andy_JS said:

    "Paul Embery
    @PaulEmbery

    The Ukrainian parliament building? No, it’s City Hall, Norwich, England. Forgive me, but I just find it incredibly weird."

    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1660238823337369600

    Paul Embery is a nutter, why he is relevant?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    We should put Mogg in charge of it.

    That way it resets to 1660 and we get another 360 or so years to sort things out.
  • CorrectHorseBatCorrectHorseBat Posts: 1,761
    There's a child's birthday going on next door, genuinely have never heard Happy Birthday so badly butchered in my life.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    We should put Mogg in charge of it.

    That way it resets to 1660 and we get another 360 or so years to sort things out.
    God no he would make cravats mandatory or something.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 26,279
    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Why did the Tories lose in 1997 in that case? The economy was doing extremely well. 1994 registered the highest growth of any year since the 1960s.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 7,146
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    I'm struggling to see January 6th as the result of loose fiscal policy, however, so it doesn't really fit your thesis.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years.

    We may still have a way to go.
    Mapping the fall of the republic onto this quote would require agreement that the Roman Republic was a democracy. It wasn't.

    We must be a little wary of mapping the past onto the present thoughtlessly, because the progress of ideas and technology make conditions too different. We like to spot similarities and we easily overlook profound differences.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    We should put Mogg in charge of it.

    That way it resets to 1660 and we get another 360 or so years to sort things out.
    God no he would make cravats mandatory or something.
    He could take a bow?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years.

    We may still have a way to go.
    Mapping the fall of the republic onto this quote would require agreement that the Roman Republic was a democracy. It wasn't.

    We must be a little wary of mapping the past onto the present thoughtlessly, because the progress of ideas and technology make conditions too different. We like to spot similarities and we easily overlook profound differences.
    Thank you for that lecture, Professor. As somebody who is not a trained, professional and published historian, I wouldn't have know that.

    Is the sarcasm more overt in this post?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    We should put Mogg in charge of it.

    That way it resets to 1660 and we get another 360 or so years to sort things out.
    God no he would make cravats mandatory or something.
    He could take a bow?
    Or knot.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    We should put Mogg in charge of it.

    That way it resets to 1660 and we get another 360 or so years to sort things out.
    God no he would make cravats mandatory or something.
    He could take a bow?
    Or knot.
    Good tie.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,042
    TSE's thread is 100% on the money, as is Gove. The problem is, and the reason for the focus on culture issues, is that the Tories don't have a good story to tell on the economy. The economy is rubbish and they're not doing anything worthwhile about it. So what else do they have?
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 9,688
    ydoethur said:

    Omnium said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    ydoethur said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    We should put Mogg in charge of it.

    That way it resets to 1660 and we get another 360 or so years to sort things out.
    God no he would make cravats mandatory or something.
    He could take a bow?
    Or knot.
    Good tie.
    You've done me like a kipper!
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    So you think democracy largely hasn't been around for 200 years, but a quote from over 200 years ago about the the pattern democracies follow can offer us some deep insight.

    This is deeply weird and incoherent stuff from you. Is there a committee telling you what sentences to write, perhaps chosen by an AV vote?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 10,775
    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years.

    We may still have a way to go.
    Mapping the fall of the republic onto this quote would require agreement that the Roman Republic was a democracy. It wasn't.

    We must be a little wary of mapping the past onto the present thoughtlessly, because the progress of ideas and technology make conditions too different. We like to spot similarities and we easily overlook profound differences.
    Thank you for that lecture, Professor. As somebody who is not a trained, professional and published historian, I wouldn't have know that.

    Is the sarcasm more overt in this post?
    It is; I spotted it this time around.
    It's largely your fault, though. You jumped into a conversation between a couple of idiots. It's only natural that one of them briefly mistook you for a third.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629

    Pagan2 said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    I point you at january 6th in the states and peoples concerns. Also most democracies including are own are not yet really 200 years old because most democracies that we would recognise as democracies are not 200 years old. Ours for example is only about 100 years old since the universal franchise.

    I can't seeing it lasting another 100 years if we carry on as we are
    I'm struggling to see January 6th as the result of loose fiscal policy, however, so it doesn't really fit your thesis.
    Americans are generally incensed about paying tax to people they don't think deserve it. The rust belt in particular which support trump see it as democrats featherbedding their supporters and areas at the expense of themselves. (For info no I don't agree that is truth just their perception).

    Certainly though in the UK we have a homeowner/pensioner/hoping for inheritance vote....voting for parties which will support largesse and a class of people who lose out mostly the young because of those policies who resent it, therefore the rise in "hey boomer" type insults.

    When democracy stops working for one portion of a nation it is a source of potential trouble.

    I have no doubt whichever party wins in 2024 the policies will support those that are already supported more than those currently losing out
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967
    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Why did the Tories lose in 1997 in that case? The economy was doing extremely well. 1994 registered the highest growth of any year since the 1960s.
    The economy was doing well despite the government not because of it.

    The government's economic strategy had been ERM membership with 15% interest rates to maintain it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    edited May 2023

    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    I’ve always found a sense of humour works the best.
    This seems timely, as people were sharing it yesterday,

    "What we eventually run up against are the forces of humourlessness, and let me assure you that the humourless as a bunch don't just not know what's funny, they don't know what's serious. They have no common sense, either, and shouldn't be trusted with anything."

    Martin Amis

    Politics is serious business. We want people to not treat it as a joke or game at critical moments. But equally no one is po faced or moralising all the time, or just a real downer, and people like Boris at the right time and place have managed to take advantage of that by not being total killjoys. But also some good people have done it too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,729
    edited May 2023
    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    ydoethur said:

    Farooq said:

    Pagan2 said:

    "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

    Tytler

    We either sort things out or we be Nero fiddling while Rome burns because that quote sums up where we are now

    Hahahaha, that quote is over 200 years old. Why haven't all the democracies degenerated into dictatorships in all that time?
    The Roman Republic lasted for 500 years.

    We may still have a way to go.
    Mapping the fall of the republic onto this quote would require agreement that the Roman Republic was a democracy. It wasn't.

    We must be a little wary of mapping the past onto the present thoughtlessly, because the progress of ideas and technology make conditions too different. We like to spot similarities and we easily overlook profound differences.
    Thank you for that lecture, Professor. As somebody who is not a trained, professional and published historian, I wouldn't have know that.

    Is the sarcasm more overt in this post?
    It is; I spotted it this time around.
    It's largely your fault, though. You jumped into a conversation between a couple of idiots. It's only natural that one of them briefly mistook you for a third.
    Mistook?

    I'm deeply hurt at the suggestion anyone could think I'm not an idiot. Just look at my cricket predictions.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 24,967

    TSE's thread is 100% on the money, as is Gove. The problem is, and the reason for the focus on culture issues, is that the Tories don't have a good story to tell on the economy. The economy is rubbish and they're not doing anything worthwhile about it. So what else do they have?

    You mean GDP is rubbish.

    But for many millions - oldies, GenXers who have paid off their mortgages, teenagers who want a job things are very nice.

    For other groups things aren't so good with the apogee of crap likely being a young, southern graduate.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 15,542

    DavidL said:

    Gove is also right that politeness and courtesy are devastating weapons in debate, far more effective than bombast and vituperation.

    Jacob Rees-Mogg's political career explained. He is unfailingly polite.
    Rees-Mogg is Uriah Heep. Like @DavidL I rate politeness, but it needs to be sincere.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629

    TSE's thread is 100% on the money, as is Gove. The problem is, and the reason for the focus on culture issues, is that the Tories don't have a good story to tell on the economy. The economy is rubbish and they're not doing anything worthwhile about it. So what else do they have?

    You mean GDP is rubbish.

    But for many millions - oldies, GenXers who have paid off their mortgages, teenagers who want a job things are very nice.

    For other groups things aren't so good with the apogee of crap likely being a young, southern graduate.
    Not so good for young people who want to buy a house, eventually retire, raise a family, work a job above min wage and not zero hours however
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,392
    Pagan2 said:

    TSE's thread is 100% on the money, as is Gove. The problem is, and the reason for the focus on culture issues, is that the Tories don't have a good story to tell on the economy. The economy is rubbish and they're not doing anything worthwhile about it. So what else do they have?

    You mean GDP is rubbish.

    But for many millions - oldies, GenXers who have paid off their mortgages, teenagers who want a job things are very nice.

    For other groups things aren't so good with the apogee of crap likely being a young, southern graduate.
    Not so good for young people who want to buy a house, eventually retire, raise a family, work a job above min wage and not zero hours however
    Young people just ask for the moon thesedays.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,786

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Cultural issues turn out your base.

    Economic issues turn out floating voters.

    Why did the Tories lose in 1997 in that case? The economy was doing extremely well. 1994 registered the highest growth of any year since the 1960s.
    The economy was doing well despite the government not because of it.

    The government's economic strategy had been ERM membership with 15% interest rates to maintain it.
    Do you think the proverbial golden economic legacy left to New Labour was entirely by chance?
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 8,629
    kle4 said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TSE's thread is 100% on the money, as is Gove. The problem is, and the reason for the focus on culture issues, is that the Tories don't have a good story to tell on the economy. The economy is rubbish and they're not doing anything worthwhile about it. So what else do they have?

    You mean GDP is rubbish.

    But for many millions - oldies, GenXers who have paid off their mortgages, teenagers who want a job things are very nice.

    For other groups things aren't so good with the apogee of crap likely being a young, southern graduate.
    Not so good for young people who want to buy a house, eventually retire, raise a family, work a job above min wage and not zero hours however
    Young people just ask for the moon thesedays.
    I am assuming that is being sarcastic :)
This discussion has been closed.