The British Election

[GreatistheLord]

I understand that even if te Tories get a greater % of popular vote than labour they may still lose because of the way that boundaries are structured.

AS they say absolute power corrupts and this administration has made big errors and it is wiser to reduce their power rather than increase it.

Even those sympathetic to Labours policies must worry about the effect on the government of the size of their majority

Yes, and who went back on their promise to introduce PR? Tony B Lair.

 

[rebel_conservative]

would you expect a govt that has a crushing majority thanks to the vagueries of the electoral system to abandon that system and change to PR where they will have to share power with the liberal democrats?

nope... never going to happen. this govt cares only about POWER. they have no principles

 

[aragorn]

that is correct. it is somewhere in the region of 3-4% if the Tories won the election by 4% it would be a hung Parliament.

the disparity is mostly because Scotland and Wales are over-represented

but also because shifting demographics have resulted in many large-majority Tory Constituencies, and many that give Labour slight majorities.

they are supposed to correct this when they review the boundaries. but Labout appealed a bunch of changes (cos it threatened their majority and they care more about power than principle or fairness) I don't know what happened about the appeals, we have received no information.



no, the first-past-the-post system in general prevents the lib dems getting a commensurate representation in Parliament. the above is different, it is the perculiarites of the system, not the system itself.

and it is NOTHING like what happened to Gore in 2000. the electoral college in the US is designed that way to protect the smaller states. the reason why it happens in the UK is due to circumstance and shifting population. the electoral boundaries in the UK are supposed to be neutral, favouring neither party, they are supposed to shift and change with society so that the make-up of the Parliament is fairly neutral. the boundaries in the USA are neutral too, but they are unchangeable due to the fact that the US is made up of 'sovereign' states. the fact that this favoured Bush in 2000 is simply bad luck for Gore and the Left. the popular vote has never mattered in American history.

Equally, the Thatcher dictatorships were based on the mandate of about 40% of those who voted,. Some democracy.

Is it your normal style of debate to ignore the questions people put to you?

 

[kurabrhm]

I

I mean, I know, people feel good when they've got a house worth 200 thousand, but it doesn't really do them much good, cause if they sell it, they're still going to need a house.

Guess that's why the smart ones have sold up and emigrated.

Tell me about it!

 

[rebel_conservative]

Equally, the Thatcher dictatorships were based on the mandate of about 40% of those who voted,. Some democracy.

you are indeed correct. that is representative government, least worst of all systems of government.

 

[aragorn]

Most tribal cultures found the notion that majority rule was the right way to do things incomprehensibly stupid.

It was said, the white man thinks that if two say yes and one says no, the two can ignore the one who says no, but all the same, a cooking fire requires three stones for the pot, take one stone out, and the pot will overturn.

Anyway, on the subject of the lilies of the field. What do you reckon?

Sound advice or hippy nonsense?#

how does your christianity inform your politics.

 

[rebel_conservative]

Most tribal cultures found the notion that majority rule was the right way to do things incomprehensibly stupid.

representative government is not majority rule. it was never intended to be. I am certainly not a democrat.

It was said, the white man thinks that if two say yes and one says no, the two can ignore the one who says no, but all the same, a cooking fire requires three stones for the pot, take one stone out, and the pot will overturn.

firstly, see Jean Jacques Rousaeu, "The Social Contract"
secondly, are you advocating government by consensus...?

Anyway, on the subject of the lilies of the field. What do you reckon?

Sound advice or hippy nonsense?

I don't see how this relates to politics... could you be more specific?

how does your christianity inform your politics.

are you thinking of a particular issue?

 

[mindlight]

would you expect a govt that has a crushing majority thanks to the vagueries of the electoral system to abandon that system and change to PR where they will have to share power with the liberal democrats?

nope... never going to happen. this govt cares only about POWER. they have no principles

It is Interesting that the principles so strongly argued before 97 have not been implemented. This and Labours attacks on historical institutions that have stood the test of time have eroded the quality of our democracy and the safeguards that used to prevent the abuse of power. A Tory Party in power would be better suited to restore the electoral balance between England and Scotland and Wales and also come up with some kind of solution for the mess that Labour has made of the Lords. Also the politicising of law under the last home secretary especially was something seriously dangerous for the long term credibility of law in the eyes of the citizenry. Such examples of this include the ban on fox hunting, the Tony Martin case about property rights, the abuse of speed cameras as a way of making money from motorists. The way in which the last Archishop was appointed was also a traversty motivated by political rather than spiritual concerns and with devastating divisive consequences for the Anglican church.

 

[aragorn]

I don't see how this relates to politics... could you be more specific?



are you thinking of a particular issue?

Well if you don't see the connection between the politics I suggested and "consider the lilies of the field", or "take no thought for the morrow",

Then you haven't thought very hard about about it.

I'll repeat myself.

"well, sorry jesus I know you're the son of God and all, but frankly, in the modern world, your advice just doesn't cut it. And Ok, all due respect to your divinity, but I think your political ideas are just barking. What, you think we should have a social system that makes it possible for people to take your advice about living in the present? That's crazy. It would be anarchy. Society would break down. What would happen to the banks?



While it's true that Labour won't introduce PR because it won't serve them, that's true of every governing party, and nothing particularly to criticise Labour for.

 

[rebel_conservative]

you premise you thoughts on the idea that the state can take over the housing stock. but have you given it any actual thought? principally - how would any new homes be built?

While it's true that Labour won't introduce PR because it won't serve them, that's true of every governing party, and nothing particularly to criticise Labour for.

I will criticise a party for campaigning on an issue and then doing nothing about it. the Tories make no pretense about supporting PR.

 

[rebel_conservative]

...the abuse of speed cameras as a way of making money from motorists...

as much as I hate the sight of these ugly monstrosities, if people were obeying the law by going the speed limit, there would be no problem.

 

[aragorn]

Answer my questions and I'll answer yours, #

 

[rebel_conservative]

when Jesus said "consider the lilies in the field," I think he meant that we are to trust God. I do not think that he meant for us to be irresponsible and reckless.

 

[aragorn]

Who said anything about being irresponsible and reckless?

I think it's pretty clear that Jesus advocated living in the present, I don't really see that you can put any other spin, on "Take no thought for the morrow for the morrow will take care of itself." Evade the point, you will, because your version of Jesus is not Jesus as he ever was or is.; You don't even want to consider it. The consequences for your comfort could be disastrous.

Fundamental. The earth and everything in it belongs to God.

Therefore claims that one owns some part of it that you neither use nor live in, if you do, are bogus. Legal fictions created by humanity, in order to fuel the moneygod.


(The Lord of all, the money-god,
Who rules us blood and hand and brain,
Who gives the roof that stops the wind,
And giving takes away again.

Who spies with jealous watchful care,
Our thoughts our dreams our secret ways,
Who picks our words and cuts our clothes
And maps the pattern of our days

Deny it if you must, but I call it self-deception. Jesus' advice about living in the present sounds like foolishness in the modern world, and I see no sign of any politics that will try to create a society that makes it less foolish.

Personally I think moving to a more natural way of being which realises that we are all just temporary tenants of the world, and never really own more than the space we occupy and the things we use, .is what would show faith in God. And if our politics should be informed at all by God, then it should be by trying to make human law more closely reflect divine law.

God's design doesn't need to be improved on by human law. The Divine Law is implicit in the world we live in. It really disgusts me to see the name of Jesus used to support late twentieth century conservatism and capitalism,

On the one hand, Jesus: On the other, your mortgage, I don't see how you can have both without being in bad faith. But you like most, reckon that trying to guarantee the roof over your head and your family's at an affordable price is more important than really living your faith. Maybe you're right, but the consequences seem pretty disastrous from where I'm sitting.
And of course I suppose it is more sensible to have a mortgage than to rent, at least you save, at least you don't give over your hard-earned cash to a landlord. But look at the consequences overall for our society. It's horrific.
Babylon.

 

[rebel_conservative]

please clarify, are you actually advocating an anarchist definition of property?

 

[aragorn]

What do you mean by an anarchist definition of property?

 

[aragorn]

I edited the long post a bit, while you typed your question, that might clarify a bit.

 

[rebel_conservative]

from http://www.blackcrayon.com/library/dictionary/?term=property

"Property is theft" means that property created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property1; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction.

"Property is liberty" means that property, that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are co-mingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by the parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

Among free-market anarchists, the divisive issue is the recognition of land as de jure private property. Mutualist anarchists, following Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Benjamin Tucker, claim land cannot be bought and sold. Land can be legitimately possessed through occupation and use (e.g., "squatting"), but cannot be purchased, cannot be sold or otherwise transferred, and cannot therefore be used as collateral in a loan or investment. Under mutualist anarchism, land cannot be willed or inherited, since such transfers involve de jure property titles. If you want to give your land to your children, they'll just have to occupy it after you're gone.

I guess, possession is ten tenths of the law...

 

[aragorn]

I don't quite understand the second paragraph. But the rest sounds fairly reasonable.

Do you not agree with it?

Now I think I do get the second paragraph and I do agree with it.

There is such a thing as the territorial imperative.

Everybody needs a place that they can call their own. One that if it suits them, they can tell whoever else to leave.

I think this is important, and should be defended. What enrages me is to see people have to pay with their lives for the privilege.

 

[aragorn]

I don't think it should be understood to mean that you can chuck someone out of their place and occupy it yourself and then it becomes yours if that was your worry.