If anyone went into the voting booth and put their cross next to the Conservative candidate then either they didn't know what they were doing (uninformed) or agreed with policies such as the institutional murder of the poor, a "hostile environment" for anyone not deemed sufficiently English, creeping privatisation of the NHS, etc (all policies which can only be called stupid) ... and, of course, the no-deal clusterfuck of leaving the EU such that we wouldn't get medicines we need, wouldn't work with many of the best researchers in the world on solving the problems of our age, spend vastly more money on making up for the losses to our economy caused by the imposition of customs checks and the loss of free movement of labour, etc (which go so far beyond stupid it's difficult to find a word for it).
So much of how you phrase that post is so heavily influenced by your own set of values that I’m not even sure you realise it.
“Institutional murder of the poor” indeed. You may as well say that everyone who walks past a homeless person without giving them money is a murderer.
Whatever those values might be - and it still after 4 years eludes me what they are -, they are wrong. This is a fundamental moral issue.
Just because you believe that doesn’t mean anyone else should.
I don’t believe that what I believe should override what others believe, excepting a very narrow set of circumstances that protect people from immediate and severe harm.
Or to put it another way, I don’t believe morality is objective. Thus there’s no one fundamental morality that should be imposed on a population whether they want it or not (as expressed through the ballot box).
If anyone went into the voting booth and put their cross next to the Conservative candidate then either they didn't know what they were doing (uninformed) or agreed with policies such as the institutional murder of the poor, a "hostile environment" for anyone not deemed sufficiently English, creeping privatisation of the NHS, etc (all policies which can only be called stupid) ... and, of course, the no-deal clusterfuck of leaving the EU such that we wouldn't get medicines we need, wouldn't work with many of the best researchers in the world on solving the problems of our age, spend vastly more money on making up for the losses to our economy caused by the imposition of customs checks and the loss of free movement of labour, etc (which go so far beyond stupid it's difficult to find a word for it).
So much of how you phrase that post is so heavily influenced by your own set of values that I’m not even sure you realise it.
Of course I realise it. I've long and deeply held set of values, radical things like "love your neighbour". Values that the majority of the UK population say they agree with ... up until the point when they put a cross next to a Conservative candidate (though, could be worse, they could put the cross next to the "make Farage even richer" Brexit Party candidate). So, if people generally say that the least advantaged in society need support, that the NHS is a national treasure (even before the weekly clap for carers) etc and then vote Tory they're either uniformed or stupid as their vote is contrary to what they say they value.
If anyone went into the voting booth and put their cross next to the Conservative candidate then either they didn't know what they were doing (uninformed) or agreed with policies such as the institutional murder of the poor, a "hostile environment" for anyone not deemed sufficiently English, creeping privatisation of the NHS, etc (all policies which can only be called stupid) ... and, of course, the no-deal clusterfuck of leaving the EU such that we wouldn't get medicines we need, wouldn't work with many of the best researchers in the world on solving the problems of our age, spend vastly more money on making up for the losses to our economy caused by the imposition of customs checks and the loss of free movement of labour, etc (which go so far beyond stupid it's difficult to find a word for it).
So much of how you phrase that post is so heavily influenced by your own set of values that I’m not even sure you realise it.
Of course I realise it. I've long and deeply held set of values, radical things like "love your neighbour". Values that the majority of the UK population say they agree with ... up until the point when they put a cross next to a Conservative candidate (though, could be worse, they could put the cross next to the "make Farage even richer" Brexit Party candidate). So, if people generally say that the least advantaged in society need support, that the NHS is a national treasure (even before the weekly clap for carers) etc and then vote Tory they're either uniformed or stupid as their vote is contrary to what they say they value.
With the vagaries of FPTP it would have been better it around half of those voting tory in constituencies with a Brexit Party (Ltd) candidate had voted for them instead - we'd likely be looking at a hung parliament again.
There were no Brexit Party candidates standing in constituencies with sitting Tory candidates. It was the only bloody hope of getting the local MP out, and the Brexit Party stood down to allow the Tories to win.
There were no Brexit Party candidates standing in constituencies with sitting Tory candidates. It was the only bloody hope of getting the local MP out, and the Brexit Party stood down to allow the Tories to win.
Yes, I know, which is why we'd only have been looking at a hung parliament. Had the Brexit Party (Ltd) got half the tory vote nationwide we'd have been looking at a stonking Labour majority. Because FPTP is fucked.
So, if people generally say that the least advantaged in society need support, that the NHS is a national treasure (even before the weekly clap for carers) etc and then vote Tory they're either uniformed or stupid as their vote is contrary to what they say they value.
Or they’re lying about what they really value. Give people a choice between (a) a well funded NHS and (b) a just-about-adequately funded NHS and an extra £20 a month in their own pockets, then put them in the privacy of the voting booth and you’ll see how much their talk of national treasures is worth.
@Marvin the Martian - did you see my post pointing out how fucked our so-called democracy is? You do realise the electoral result was influenced by gerrymandering, disenfranchisement and political posturing? And that's before we include the lies and partial reporting of the media as directed by the far from disinterested Press Barons.
It's not a fundamental moral issue. For goodness' sake, treating the European Union like it's some kind of divine utopia is ridiculous. The arrangement has its problems, and acting like it's perfect is no better than acting like it's some great evil.
@Marvin the Martian - did you see my post pointing out how fucked our so-called democracy is? You do realise the electoral result was influenced by gerrymandering, disenfranchisement and political posturing? And that's before we include the lies and partial reporting of the media as directed by the far from disinterested Press Barons.
The UK electoral distribution is rife with gerrymandering gauging from comments made in a thread about strange electorates in the Scottish Isles. Not sure about the disenfranchisement you refer to - some details please. And what election is not filled with political posturing? I'd have thought it par for the course.
So, if people generally say that the least advantaged in society need support, that the NHS is a national treasure (even before the weekly clap for carers) etc and then vote Tory they're either uniformed or stupid as their vote is contrary to what they say they value.
Or they’re lying about what they really value. Give people a choice between (a) a well funded NHS and (b) a just-about-adequately funded NHS and an extra £20 a month in their own pockets, then put them in the privacy of the voting booth and you’ll see how much their talk of national treasures is worth.
On the other hand, put them in a voting booth and ask them to choose between Remaining in the EU and taking much more than £20 a month from their pockets ...
Besides, the Tories didn't even offer a just-about-adequately funded NHS. In 2019 we'd had a decade of significantly below adequate funding, and the only promise of extra funding was a mythical £350m that never existed in the first place.
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Is the right wing press alleging that the head of Public Health England doesn't get the importance of science now? Does that mean they're trying to fit Public Health England up as the scapegoat for all this?
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Is the right wing press alleging that the head of Public Health England doesn't get the importance of science now? Does that mean they're trying to fit Public Health England up as the scapegoat for all this?
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this and his time at a mental health trust before that wasn't exactly a resounding success, leaving his successor to pick up the pieces.
Have you actually read those articles ?
Yes. More relevant, by pure luck I had people (my ex and another) who worked in the same place at the time. DS was referred to as teflon man because he had an uncanny knack of moving away from a trust just before the sh*t hit the fan. As my ex said, a pleasant enough cove, just a square peg.
I think the assertion is that voting on the basis of racism and xenophobia is a moral issue.
Which assumes that's the basis on which people voted. Half of Marvin's point is that it's a complete fallacy to assume that someone who didn't vote the way you would have can only have done it for these kinds of antithetical reasons.
@Marvin the Martian - did you see my post pointing out how fucked our so-called democracy is? You do realise the electoral result was influenced by gerrymandering, disenfranchisement and political posturing? And that's before we include the lies and partial reporting of the media as directed by the far from disinterested Press Barons.
On national percentages Tory + Brexit + UKIP is almost 50% of the votes cast. Gerrymandering won’t affect that. Even a pure nationwide PR system would have had a very good chance of returning a Conservative (plus allies) government, especially as some of the other parties had explicitly said they wouldn’t work with each other.
The problem with safe seats cuts both ways. For every Labour supporter who doesn’t bother voting in a safe Tory seat there’s a Tory supporter who doesn’t bother voting in a safe Labour seat.
And unfortunately, freedom of the press extends to them being allowed to say things you don’t like as well as things you do.
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Is the right wing press alleging that the head of Public Health England doesn't get the importance of science now? Does that mean they're trying to fit Public Health England up as the scapegoat for all this?
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this
Cummings may be many things, but at least he "gets" the importance of science. To be blunt, DC is better qualified to be a member of the SAGE group than the head of Public Health England.
Is the right wing press alleging that the head of Public Health England doesn't get the importance of science now? Does that mean they're trying to fit Public Health England up as the scapegoat for all this?
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this and his time at a mental health trust before that wasn't exactly a resounding success, leaving his successor to pick up the pieces.
Have you actually read those articles ?
Yes. More relevant, by pure luck I had people (my ex and another) who worked in the same place at the time. DS was referred to as teflon man because he had an uncanny knack of moving away from a trust just before the sh*t hit the fan. As my ex said, a pleasant enough cove, just a square peg.
So you will have noticed then that the data was not lost it was stolen, from a locked room by a security contractor. And the conditions apologised for in 2006 referred to services provided by the trust in 2005, where the man in question had taken his post in the summer of 2006.
He might be a an incompetent knobend for all I know, but neither of those examples give much evidence for that hypothesis.
The large uptick in racial harassment, and the kind of material people post online about why they voted they did do lend the idea creedance.
No, they don't. How large? Were 52% of the population engaging in that kind of behaviour?
We're dealing with a black-and-white fallacy. The fact that some people voted for Brexit on that basis is not a rational basis for trying to characterise everyone who voted for Brexit as if that was the reason.
I'd say it was analagous to 'no true Scotsman' thinking, except the Scots tended not to vote for Brexit... but it's 'no decent Englishman' thinking. The fact that indecent Englishmen voted to leave does not logically mean that all (or even most) people that voted leave were indecent.
The large uptick in racial harassment, and the kind of material people post online about why they voted they did do lend the idea creedance.
No, they don't. How large? Were 52% of the population engaging in that kind of behaviour?
We're dealing with a black-and-white fallacy. The fact that some people voted for Brexit on that basis is not a rational basis for trying to characterise everyone who voted for Brexit as if that was the reason.
I'd say it was analagous to 'no true Scotsman' thinking, except the Scots tended not to vote for Brexit... but it's 'no decent Englishman' thinking. The fact that indecent Englishmen voted to leave does not logically mean that all (or even most) people that voted leave were indecent.
I've yet to engage with a leave voter who wasn't either (a) a bigot or (b) monumentally clueless about what the EU does and how it operates or (c) both. The idea that there is a silent mass of well-informed, decent people who nonetheless voted leave is a pipe dream.
The large uptick in racial harassment, and the kind of material people post online about why they voted they did do lend the idea creedance.
No, they don't. How large? Were 52% of the population engaging in that kind of behaviour?
We're dealing with a black-and-white fallacy. The fact that some people voted for Brexit on that basis is not a rational basis for trying to characterise everyone who voted for Brexit as if that was the reason.
I'd say it was analagous to 'no true Scotsman' thinking, except the Scots tended not to vote for Brexit... but it's 'no decent Englishman' thinking. The fact that indecent Englishmen voted to leave does not logically mean that all (or even most) people that voted leave were indecent.
I've yet to engage with a leave voter who wasn't either (a) a bigot or (b) monumentally clueless about what the EU does and how it operates or (c) both. The idea that there is a silent mass of well-informed, decent people who nonetheless voted leave is a pipe dream.
There may be, but anecdotally, I've been astounded by local leavers' stupidity and insularity. I'm sure there are intelligent and non-bigoted ones, but where are they?
The large uptick in racial harassment, and the kind of material people post online about why they voted they did do lend the idea creedance.
No, they don't. How large? Were 52% of the population engaging in that kind of behaviour?
We're dealing with a black-and-white fallacy. The fact that some people voted for Brexit on that basis is not a rational basis for trying to characterise everyone who voted for Brexit as if that was the reason.
I'd say it was analagous to 'no true Scotsman' thinking, except the Scots tended not to vote for Brexit... but it's 'no decent Englishman' thinking. The fact that indecent Englishmen voted to leave does not logically mean that all (or even most) people that voted leave were indecent.
I've yet to engage with a leave voter who wasn't either (a) a bigot or (b) monumentally clueless about what the EU does and how it operates or (c) both. The idea that there is a silent mass of well-informed, decent people who nonetheless voted leave is a pipe dream.
There may be, but anecdotally, I've been astounded by local leavers' stupidity and insularity. I'm sure there are intelligent and non-bigoted ones, but where are they?
The irony, of course, is that most of us on smaller islands voted remain.
@Marvin the Martian - did you see my post pointing out how fucked our so-called democracy is? You do realise the electoral result was influenced by gerrymandering, disenfranchisement and political posturing? And that's before we include the lies and partial reporting of the media as directed by the far from disinterested Press Barons.
The UK electoral distribution is rife with gerrymandering gauging from comments made in a thread about strange electorates in the Scottish Isles. Not sure about the disenfranchisement you refer to - some details please. And what election is not filled with political posturing? I'd have thought it par for the course.
@Gee D - the information you're requesting is linked in the post you're quoting - the bit that says: my post
On national percentages Tory + Brexit + UKIP is almost 50% of the votes cast. Gerrymandering won’t affect that. Even a pure nationwide PR system would have had a very good chance of returning a Conservative (plus allies) government, especially as some of the other parties had explicitly said they wouldn’t work with each other.
According to BBC (link)
Conservative - 43.6% -
Labour - 32.2%
Lib Dem - 11.5%
SNP - 3.9%
Green - 2.7%
Brexit - 2%
So Pro-Brexit - 45.6%
against Brexit - 50.3%
According to those BBC figures the Tory + Brexit + UKIP vote was 45.7% of 67.3% turnout, (UKIP gained 0.1% of the vote which is why I have ignored them), 45.7% is not a majority under PR.
In addition on a 67.3% turnout, that 45.7% means only 32.1% of the electorate voted for Brexit. And to reiterate my previous post, the electoral roll at September 2019 was partial with 17% not on the roll at their address and 15% incompletion, so it is likely another third of the population was not included reducing the so called mandate even further.
Getting back to ABdPJ (remember him?) I hopefully anticipate that Keir Starmer will dismember him at PMQ on Wednesday. Unhappily, that won't have the slightest effec ton Our Beleoved Leader or his devoted followers. ''Tis but a scratch. . . .'
It's not a fundamental moral issue. For goodness' sake, treating the European Union like it's some kind of divine utopia is ridiculous. The arrangement has its problems, and acting like it's perfect is no better than acting like it's some great evil.
That isn't the moral issue, any more than Hillary Clinton was.
You are entirely right that the EU is not some kind of divine utopia. Nor was it the cause of God. Nor, was voting leave a directly moral issue in itself. Those aren't the questions. It's two other ones which are quite different from those but related to each other.
1. Contrary to widespread assumptions which are for many people deeply and wrongly ingrained, nationalism is incompatible with Christianity, and
2. Whatever you vote for, being a xenophobe, or racist, and voting according to your xenophobic or racist motivation is a profound moral issue.
There comes a point, also, when stupidity is so blatant that it becomes a moral issue. Suggesting that injecting people with disinfectant is a pertinent topical example.
You and I will probably disagree and continue to disagree on this, but I do not accept the prevalent notions that all morality is relative, or socially conditioned. Nor am I going to.
There are many, many, indeed, possibly, most, issues which are not 'objectively' right or wrong. There are, though, some which are - theft, murder and adultery for example. Saying that 'morality is not objective' is not an intellectual excuse that lets either oneself or one's friends off responsibility for what one does.
I've voted Labour almost all my life. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which I would vote Conservative. Yet currently I work with many people who are active members of the Tory party. They are neither uninformed nor stupid; they are certainly not evil.
Demonising your opponents only makes a bad situation worse.
Demonising your opponents only makes a bad situation worse.
Alternately, after things have gotten as bad as civilization can generally tolerate, what the fuck is there to lose by pointing out the gaping assholes who brought us here?
I've voted Labour almost all my life. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which I would vote Conservative. Yet currently I work with many people who are active members of the Tory party. They are neither uninformed nor stupid; they are certainly not evil.
Demonising your opponents only makes a bad situation worse.
According to those BBC figures the Tory + Brexit + UKIP vote was 45.7% of 67.3% turnout, (UKIP gained 0.1% of the vote which is why I have ignored them), 45.7% is not a majority under PR.
No, but it’s probably enough to run a minority government if the other parties refuse to work together.
In addition on a 67.3% turnout, that 45.7% means only 32.1% of the electorate voted for Brexit. And to reiterate my previous post, the electoral roll at September 2019 was partial with 17% not on the roll at their address and 15% incompletion, so it is likely another third of the population was not included reducing the so called mandate even further.
People who didn’t vote (for whatever reason) cannot be assumed to have voted one way or another. For all you know every one of them might have voted Conservative, which would make their vote share somewhere around 80%.
I've voted Labour almost all my life. I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which I would vote Conservative. Yet currently I work with many people who are active members of the Tory party. They are neither uninformed nor stupid; they are certainly not evil.
Demonising your opponents only makes a bad situation worse.
I know several of the local Conservative Party activists, and agree they are generally quite intelligent and informed. They also have significant disagreements with the policies adopted by senior members of the party supported by an influx of new members. They're still Conservatives because there's some clear blue water between the Scottish Conservatives and London (the irony, as they oppose any form of increase in devolved powers let alone independence) and so feel they can distance themselves from Johnson and the other clowns, and also because they still believe in traditional Conservative values and there's no other party that would be a better match for what they believe in.
I happen to think they're mistaken, both in the axiomatic bases of what they believe in and in the logic of how they think their policies will help. But, not stupid or uniformed. People I can have a decent conversation with (somewhat passionate, of course, but not descending to throwing slurs and insults). There are lots of good people at the grassroots level, but it does seem that in the last few decades those who rise to the top in the party aren't the cream but instead entirely different floaters.
So, if people generally say that the least advantaged in society need support, that the NHS is a national treasure (even before the weekly clap for carers) etc and then vote Tory they're either uniformed or stupid as their vote is contrary to what they say they value.
Or they’re lying about what they really value. Give people a choice between (a) a well funded NHS and (b) a just-about-adequately funded NHS and an extra £20 a month in their own pockets, then put them in the privacy of the voting booth and you’ll see how much their talk of national treasures is worth.
In the 1999 Scottish independence referendum 63% voted in favour of the Parliament having tax raising powers. The North East household pays 1% more in income tax than we would if we lived in England (41% rather than 40%. ) We voted for this and we fully support it. If it meant a well-funded NHS we'd vote our income tax up to 43% ( 3% is the max that Scottish income tax can diverge from the rest of the UK).
It's not altruistic. We have friends in England paying eye-watering amounts to educate their children, whereas ours went to a state comprehensive for free. A bit more tax, a lot less expense. Likewise I'd rather pay more tax to fund the NHS than pay for private health insurance.
I'm also in the above average pay group meaning I pay marginally more tax than I would if I lived in England. Although because Scotland is still tied to Westminster spending (our government can't unilaterally choose to spend a lot more on the NHS without cutting spending elsewhere) that change in taxation does mean that the lowest income workers are marginally better off than they'd be in England. I'd be happy to pay more income tax and council tax to fund public services; this is good in itself, but will also mean that when I need those services I won't have any worries about them being available and of top quality.
I'd be happy to pay more income tax and council tax to fund public services; this is good in itself, but will also mean that when I need those services I won't have any worries about them being available and of top quality.
I don’t have any such worries, and I live in England.
Not even a little worry about how big a debt your children will have when they leave university? No concerns about whether you'll be able to afford a care home in 30-40 years when you're unable to care for yourself? Not concerned that your children won't be able to afford to buy a small flat, and there won't be council houses for them? That's just for yourself and your family, surely you also care for your neighbours who are already in the position of not being able to get good nursing care, or who have graduated from university with crippling debts?
I know that several years of constriction in school budgets, and the massive reduction in LA capacity means we’re facing a budget deficit and possibly cost-driven redundancies. I know how much our schools are finding themselves doing in the way of basic social care as other support has been withdrawn.
I know our local hospital trust for demographic and population reasons has to run hospitals on three sites, but is funded the same as if it were a single site. It is being fined for overspending it’s budget.
These are just two impacts of which I am directly aware of a decade of austerity, a policy which has always looked ideology-driven, and has been discredited by most economic commentators.
Then there is a widespread withdrawal of resources for the most vulnerable and the need to run a food bank because the government-set so-called national living wage isn’t a real living wage, and because the supposed safety net of social security fails to catch too many people, and is (apparently designedly) inadequate for those it does catch.
I would willingly pay a bit more tax to se some of those issues resolved.
Unfortunately for us in England, it's not just a question of tax revenues. Consistently, as I've said before on these boards, Scotland is better run, much better run, than England. One important reason is because it has politicians whose job it is to do that, rather than who see their position as a fantastic opportunity to ponce around on the international stage and perform to both the national and international galleries.
@Gee D - the information you're requesting is linked in the post you're quoting - the bit that says: my post
Except that the actions quoted do not mean that they are disenfranchised, but rather that many have chosen to opt out, not register in the first place or not keep their enrolment details up to date. Disenfranchisement means that the government has taken positive action to stop their voting.
As for the safe seat - where we live has always returned a non-Labor member in local, State and Federal elections. Normally the successful candidate does not have to go to preferences. There are similar safe Labor seats.
Not even a little worry about how big a debt your children will have when they leave university?
No, because I understand how the student loan system actually works.
No concerns about whether you'll be able to afford a care home in 30-40 years when you're unable to care for yourself?
No. Though I will clarify that by saying that having to go into a care home in the first place would represent such a terrible end to my life that the question of how to pay for it would pale into insignificance.
Not concerned that your children won't be able to afford to buy a small flat, and there won't be council houses for them?
No. They can, if necessary, live with us until they’ve saved up enough for a deposit.
That's just for yourself and your family, surely you also care for your neighbours who are already in the position of not being able to get good nursing care,
I might if I knew anyone in that position.
or who have graduated from university with crippling debts?
I don’t know anyone in that position, and neither do you (EDIT - under the UK system, that is. I can’t comment on any other countries systems). Because student loan debt is specifically set up to not be crippling under any circumstances. You can never pay a single penny back and they’ll just write it off after enough time passes. Most graduates would probably end up paying more over their lifetime if loans were replaced by grants funded by a graduate tax.
@Gee D - the information you're requesting is linked in the post you're quoting - the bit that says: my post
Except that the actions quoted do not mean that they are disenfranchised, but rather that many have chosen to opt out, not register in the first place or not keep their enrolment details up to date. Disenfranchisement means that the government has taken positive action to stop their voting.
They did. They banned household registration, including universities registering those in halls of residence. On a smaller scale they've started requiring photo-ID to vote, which disenfranchises predominantly the poor (who don't drive or have a passport) and those who don't have official paperwork (e.g. Windrush folks).
I don't understand what is meant bu household registration - does not each person claiming to be eligible to vote register? And is there no way around the photo ID rules? Of course none of this deals with my comment that there was nothing in the post from Curiosity Rules to support the assertion of disenfranchisement, no mention of the matters you now raise for example.
Household registration meant that every year (ish) the electoral registration office sent a letter to each household, with one person filling in the details of those in the household eligible to vote. It was replaced in 2014 with individual registration where every individual had to fill in and return the form (this can now be done online rather than being a physical piece of paper), the result was that a large number of people dropped off the register.
There would be means to get around the photo-ID requirement. But, that's still putting an additional barrier to people voting.
Thanks for the detail. The procedure here is that age 18, people go to their electoral office and register, keeping up-to-date with changes of address. But then again, over 90% of eligible voters here turn out for elections. A totally different ethos to those countries where voting is not compulsory.
Comments
So much of how you phrase that post is so heavily influenced by your own set of values that I’m not even sure you realise it.
“Institutional murder of the poor” indeed. You may as well say that everyone who walks past a homeless person without giving them money is a murderer.
Just because you believe that doesn’t mean anyone else should.
I don’t believe that what I believe should override what others believe, excepting a very narrow set of circumstances that protect people from immediate and severe harm.
Or to put it another way, I don’t believe morality is objective. Thus there’s no one fundamental morality that should be imposed on a population whether they want it or not (as expressed through the ballot box).
With the vagaries of FPTP it would have been better it around half of those voting tory in constituencies with a Brexit Party (Ltd) candidate had voted for them instead - we'd likely be looking at a hung parliament again.
Yes, I know, which is why we'd only have been looking at a hung parliament. Had the Brexit Party (Ltd) got half the tory vote nationwide we'd have been looking at a stonking Labour majority. Because FPTP is fucked.
Or they’re lying about what they really value. Give people a choice between (a) a well funded NHS and (b) a just-about-adequately funded NHS and an extra £20 a month in their own pockets, then put them in the privacy of the voting booth and you’ll see how much their talk of national treasures is worth.
The UK electoral distribution is rife with gerrymandering gauging from comments made in a thread about strange electorates in the Scottish Isles. Not sure about the disenfranchisement you refer to - some details please. And what election is not filled with political posturing? I'd have thought it par for the course.
Besides, the Tories didn't even offer a just-about-adequately funded NHS. In 2019 we'd had a decade of significantly below adequate funding, and the only promise of extra funding was a mythical £350m that never existed in the first place.
I don't know. I only ask because PHE has a CEO who has only ever worked in NHS admin since he was a teenager. However, he does have a track record for cock-ups such as this
Yes. More relevant, by pure luck I had people (my ex and another) who worked in the same place at the time. DS was referred to as teflon man because he had an uncanny knack of moving away from a trust just before the sh*t hit the fan. As my ex said, a pleasant enough cove, just a square peg.
Which assumes that's the basis on which people voted. Half of Marvin's point is that it's a complete fallacy to assume that someone who didn't vote the way you would have can only have done it for these kinds of antithetical reasons.
On national percentages Tory + Brexit + UKIP is almost 50% of the votes cast. Gerrymandering won’t affect that. Even a pure nationwide PR system would have had a very good chance of returning a Conservative (plus allies) government, especially as some of the other parties had explicitly said they wouldn’t work with each other.
The problem with safe seats cuts both ways. For every Labour supporter who doesn’t bother voting in a safe Tory seat there’s a Tory supporter who doesn’t bother voting in a safe Labour seat.
And unfortunately, freedom of the press extends to them being allowed to say things you don’t like as well as things you do.
So you will have noticed then that the data was not lost it was stolen, from a locked room by a security contractor. And the conditions apologised for in 2006 referred to services provided by the trust in 2005, where the man in question had taken his post in the summer of 2006.
He might be a an incompetent knobend for all I know, but neither of those examples give much evidence for that hypothesis.
No, they don't. How large? Were 52% of the population engaging in that kind of behaviour?
We're dealing with a black-and-white fallacy. The fact that some people voted for Brexit on that basis is not a rational basis for trying to characterise everyone who voted for Brexit as if that was the reason.
I'd say it was analagous to 'no true Scotsman' thinking, except the Scots tended not to vote for Brexit... but it's 'no decent Englishman' thinking. The fact that indecent Englishmen voted to leave does not logically mean that all (or even most) people that voted leave were indecent.
I've yet to engage with a leave voter who wasn't either (a) a bigot or (b) monumentally clueless about what the EU does and how it operates or (c) both. The idea that there is a silent mass of well-informed, decent people who nonetheless voted leave is a pipe dream.
There may be, but anecdotally, I've been astounded by local leavers' stupidity and insularity. I'm sure there are intelligent and non-bigoted ones, but where are they?
The irony, of course, is that most of us on smaller islands voted remain.
@Gee D - the information you're requesting is linked in the post you're quoting - the bit that says: my post
I'll remind you of this post: According to those BBC figures the Tory + Brexit + UKIP vote was 45.7% of 67.3% turnout, (UKIP gained 0.1% of the vote which is why I have ignored them), 45.7% is not a majority under PR.
In addition on a 67.3% turnout, that 45.7% means only 32.1% of the electorate voted for Brexit. And to reiterate my previous post, the electoral roll at September 2019 was partial with 17% not on the roll at their address and 15% incompletion, so it is likely another third of the population was not included reducing the so called mandate even further.
Starmer will do a Good Job, I think, but, as you say...
Yep. I have no doubt that Starmer will dismember him in every encounter. But I doubt it will cut through to the public
The 'press' will report that BoJo dismembered KeirStarm...no matter what the Truth™ might be.
*sigh*
On the third week, He rose again,
Glorious in majesty to reign!
O let us sing the joyful strain,
Pfeffeliluia, pfeffeliluia, pfeffeluia!
You are entirely right that the EU is not some kind of divine utopia. Nor was it the cause of God. Nor, was voting leave a directly moral issue in itself. Those aren't the questions. It's two other ones which are quite different from those but related to each other.
1. Contrary to widespread assumptions which are for many people deeply and wrongly ingrained, nationalism is incompatible with Christianity, and
2. Whatever you vote for, being a xenophobe, or racist, and voting according to your xenophobic or racist motivation is a profound moral issue.
There comes a point, also, when stupidity is so blatant that it becomes a moral issue. Suggesting that injecting people with disinfectant is a pertinent topical example.
And, @Marvin the Martian I think you are 100% wrong in saying that You and I will probably disagree and continue to disagree on this, but I do not accept the prevalent notions that all morality is relative, or socially conditioned. Nor am I going to.
There are many, many, indeed, possibly, most, issues which are not 'objectively' right or wrong. There are, though, some which are - theft, murder and adultery for example. Saying that 'morality is not objective' is not an intellectual excuse that lets either oneself or one's friends off responsibility for what one does.
Demonising your opponents only makes a bad situation worse.
Alternately, after things have gotten as bad as civilization can generally tolerate, what the fuck is there to lose by pointing out the gaping assholes who brought us here?
So what is your explanation for their behaviour?
No, but it’s probably enough to run a minority government if the other parties refuse to work together.
People who didn’t vote (for whatever reason) cannot be assumed to have voted one way or another. For all you know every one of them might have voted Conservative, which would make their vote share somewhere around 80%.
I happen to think they're mistaken, both in the axiomatic bases of what they believe in and in the logic of how they think their policies will help. But, not stupid or uniformed. People I can have a decent conversation with (somewhat passionate, of course, but not descending to throwing slurs and insults). There are lots of good people at the grassroots level, but it does seem that in the last few decades those who rise to the top in the party aren't the cream but instead entirely different floaters.
In the 1999 Scottish independence referendum 63% voted in favour of the Parliament having tax raising powers. The North East household pays 1% more in income tax than we would if we lived in England (41% rather than 40%. ) We voted for this and we fully support it. If it meant a well-funded NHS we'd vote our income tax up to 43% ( 3% is the max that Scottish income tax can diverge from the rest of the UK).
It's not altruistic. We have friends in England paying eye-watering amounts to educate their children, whereas ours went to a state comprehensive for free. A bit more tax, a lot less expense. Likewise I'd rather pay more tax to fund the NHS than pay for private health insurance.
I don’t have any such worries, and I live in England.
I know that several years of constriction in school budgets, and the massive reduction in LA capacity means we’re facing a budget deficit and possibly cost-driven redundancies. I know how much our schools are finding themselves doing in the way of basic social care as other support has been withdrawn.
I know our local hospital trust for demographic and population reasons has to run hospitals on three sites, but is funded the same as if it were a single site. It is being fined for overspending it’s budget.
These are just two impacts of which I am directly aware of a decade of austerity, a policy which has always looked ideology-driven, and has been discredited by most economic commentators.
Then there is a widespread withdrawal of resources for the most vulnerable and the need to run a food bank because the government-set so-called national living wage isn’t a real living wage, and because the supposed safety net of social security fails to catch too many people, and is (apparently designedly) inadequate for those it does catch.
I would willingly pay a bit more tax to se some of those issues resolved.
Except that the actions quoted do not mean that they are disenfranchised, but rather that many have chosen to opt out, not register in the first place or not keep their enrolment details up to date. Disenfranchisement means that the government has taken positive action to stop their voting.
As for the safe seat - where we live has always returned a non-Labor member in local, State and Federal elections. Normally the successful candidate does not have to go to preferences. There are similar safe Labor seats.
No, because I understand how the student loan system actually works.
No. Though I will clarify that by saying that having to go into a care home in the first place would represent such a terrible end to my life that the question of how to pay for it would pale into insignificance.
No. They can, if necessary, live with us until they’ve saved up enough for a deposit.
I might if I knew anyone in that position.
I don’t know anyone in that position, and neither do you (EDIT - under the UK system, that is. I can’t comment on any other countries systems). Because student loan debt is specifically set up to not be crippling under any circumstances. You can never pay a single penny back and they’ll just write it off after enough time passes. Most graduates would probably end up paying more over their lifetime if loans were replaced by grants funded by a graduate tax.
They did. They banned household registration, including universities registering those in halls of residence. On a smaller scale they've started requiring photo-ID to vote, which disenfranchises predominantly the poor (who don't drive or have a passport) and those who don't have official paperwork (e.g. Windrush folks).
Then they send polling cards to the house for everyone registered there.
There would be means to get around the photo-ID requirement. But, that's still putting an additional barrier to people voting.
Where? There was no such requirement at the polling station I used.
It's still in "trials" in limited locations at the moment, but hundreds of people without ID were turned away.