Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About CaptainSwing

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

1,209 profile views
  1. Everybody is more or less dependent on other people, unless you're living by yourself as a hunter-gatherer in Siberia or something. "It's a mutual, joint-stock world, in all meridians." Even Ayn Rand was dependent on Social Security and Medicare in her later years.
  2. No, my point was more that I've never heard anybody over the age of 10 use the phrase "cry baby" in the expectation of being taken seriously.
  3. Ah, I'm with you. Yes, PR would very likely have that effect - or, put another way, the smaller parties would get bigger. People could vote for parties with policies they actually approved of, rather than having to choose the least worst option that might win in their constituency (or abstain, or vote for an also-ran, which amounts to the same thing under the current system). I see that about 42% of people in the UK are currently in favour of PR, with 30% against and 28% not having an opinion. The proportions have remained pretty stable since they started collecting the data a couple of years ago: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system If you drill down into that, you'll see that people are more likely to favour PR if they're under 50 years of age, of higher socioeconomic status, and don't live in the Midlands. [Or, in the latest poll, Wales, but I suspect that's just noise.] For comparison, the Brexit referendum was 37.5% Leave vs. 34.7% Remain, with 27.8% of people not expressing an opinion.
  4. Hundreds of years? We've only had (more or less) universal suffrage since 1928, or 1969 if you want to include 18-21 year olds (which I'm sure you wouldn't). Can't really call it a democracy before then, in any current sense of the word. Sad bunch of anti-Tory cry babies? You mean the (on average since 1945) 59% of voters who don't vote Tory? Or just the 56.4% at the last election? And ... "cry babies"? How old are you again? PR might (or might not) have its problems, but being less democratic than FPTP isn't one of them. Not 100% sure I've understood you there, but in my preferred version of PR you'd have several members in each constituency, so there'd be several winning candidates, none of whom would probably get as many as half the votes. Or first preference votes - there'd need to be some kind of transferable vote system, partly to deal with the issue of proliferation of small parties. I think that this kind of system is used in places like Denmark and Finland, but don't quote me on that.
  5. Under the d'Hondt PR system, for instance, your area would choose several MPs from different parties. At least one of them would most likely be somebody you voted for. Whereas at the 2019 election (for instance) there were about 200 constituencies where less than half the votes were for the winning candidate so that, in those constituencies, more than half the people are now represented by somebody they didn't vote for. I don't follow. Are you arguing that it's better to have a government that was voted for by a minority of the population than it is to have to wait a few weeks for a new government to be formed? Fair enough if that's what you believe but, again, it doesn't sound very democratic to me. Yes, under a (weird variant of) a FPTP system. But you're right that it does give a malevolent outgoing president the chance to try and sabotage the incoming one - mentioning no names. No, it's the apologists for FPTP who are anti-democratic, whether they're Tory, Labour or Monster Raving Loony Party.
  6. Far from being a 'left leaning' policy, saving the banks was the classic example of neoliberalism in action. The bankers get the rewards while the taxpayer takes the risks and pays the price - this 'corporate welfarism' is one of the things that distinguish neoliberalism from pure 19th century laissez-faire. People might not have been impressed by the bailout, but I think they saw it as unavoidable under the circumstances. What they were really unimpressed by was the decades of policy that produced those circumstances. Some of the banks were temporarily nationalised, both here and in the US, but if it had been a 'left leaning policy' they still would be. Meanwhile, back on topic, Will Hutton thought that the Tories were gravitating towards Keynesianism even before the pandemic kicked off [as always, I'll believe it when I see it]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/14/this-tory-budget-is-keynes-reborn-will-hutton Not that Keynesianism is 'left-leaning' of course. Keynes himself was very much a capitalist. His project was above all to stabilize capitalism, not to destroy it. And to make it work for the majority of people - to that extent he was also a small-s socialist.
  7. So, as the Forum's no. 1 champion of democracy, you're happy for 43% of the vote to determine 100% of the government? I think your idea of democracy might be a little different from mine.
  8. I think you're getting into the realms of fantasy there Jones.
  9. Let's not forget, when the Churchill/Eden/Macmillan/Douglas-Home years in power were over, the outgoing Chancellor, Reggie Maudling, left a note to his successor saying "Good luck, old c**k.... Sorry to leave it in such a mess".
  10. Yes, I think a lot of Labour supporters did want that, for similar reasons to why they want PR. An alliance/pact with the SNP might have made sense too, though politically that was never going to happen. Likewise there was no way that Swinson would ever have considered a pact with Labour in 2019 - or vice versa. Ideologically the gulf was too wide, and of course she thought she was on to a winner with her hardcore Remain stance.
  11. Here's another article making the same point. Boris the Red Tory. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2021/05/red-tory-vision-britain-boris-johnson-and-his-new-conservatives-will-triumph [As I've said before, I'll believe it when I see it.]
  12. Yes, but how many of those 6 million would be voting Tory anyway? It wouldn't necessarily look awful to Tory voters, many of whom seem to think that anybody who is dependent on state benefits is a feckless scrounger. Apart from things like road maintenance, national security, policing, state schools, health care or the state pension, of course - they're not really benefits.
  13. This could well be true. Johnson read Greats at Oxford, which is a demanding course intellectually, if a bit 'elitist', especially in his day. Or maybe he's just getting older - there are also old videos of his role model Donald Trump sounding quite articulate, though he wasn't lacking in bluster even then. Probably Trump's fans would say it's all an act with him too, at least the ones who don't think he comes across as intellectual. But Johnson must be doing something right if the Adam Smith Institute think he's 'economically illiterate'.
  14. Two daughters, apparently. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420625/MP-Nadine-Dorries-pays-daughters-75k-public-purse-work-office.html
  15. The Guardian's Larry Elliott reckons that "The prime minister thinks he has hit on a winning formula with an interventionist, left-of-centre approach to the economy and a tough right-of-centre approach to law and order, immigration and culture wars." In other words, under Johnson the Tories are morphing into something like the old BNP, or Marine Le Pen's Rassemblement National. Meanwhile Labour is morphing (back) into something like the Tories. Interesting times.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.