Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by SpokeyDokey, 12 Apr 2019.
pale rider was talking about people who are pro PR. Those sound like people who don’t want PR
OK, I should not have generalised.
There was quite a bit of stuff in the media just after the referendum of people voting Leave because Cameron didn't want it, and this was the only time their vote would count for something. With PR, that situation is much less likely to arise. It may not have changed the outcome, but it would be nice to believe that the vote to Leave won because people really did want to leave, rather than some having voted that way just to stick a finger up at the Tories.
Can we not be exercised by that and still ridicule Farage?
PR comes in loads of different versions. Not all of them allow any nutter who can con 200 voters anywhere near parliamentary seats.
Has he brought his own buffoons and balloons?
The Fatherland requires 5% of the vote to try to prevent a proliferation of small parties obtaining a disproportionate amount of power (cf. DUP and Tories at present). The exception is the Danish population of Schleswig-Hostein. Even the German liberals have fallen foul of the 5% rule, but later made a comeback.
I agree with this. A lot of populism across Europe is the result of geniune grievances being ignored, sometimes for years. Who can blame those in the old industrial heartlands of Britain complaining about the money being 'earned' in the City?
I would be wary of not taking this new party seriously. Farage has money behind him, and links to the same team that managed to put Trump in the Whitehouse. I'm not saying we are seeing a repeat of what was founded on 24 February 1920 in Munich, but best to make sure history does not repeat itself.
But not enough to persuade them to vote for him in massive numbers - except in the previous Euro elections.
His only electoral success is in getting himself and a few others elected to an institution he despises (and which despises him in return) where they proceeded not to bother doing anything and couldn't even hold together as a party.
It's a delightful prospect that we now have *three* parties fighting the Euro elections whose only material policy is to leave the EU. Because a split vote is a lost vote.
Knock yourself out!
I'd just like to try to shift the debate from "farage is an idiot and so are those that support his policies" to "why do so many people support his policies and perhaps addressing their issues is a way to strangle the far right rhetoric?"
Give us about 20 years, that should do it.
The only mainstream media stuff I see that tries to do this is John Harris in the Guardian, and someone's going to pop up and say he isn't mainstream.
Unfortunately, ridiculing people and/or arguing them into a corner with facts that trump their prejudices/beliefs rarely results in them changing their minds, which is what I think most people want. You have to address the deep seated reasons for these prejudices. For example, why don't people want immigration into the UK when, by most metrics, it is a positive economic thing? It is a total waste of time to show that immigrants pay more tax on average, use the welfare state less on average. You have to get to the real reasons that they cover up with these illiogicalities
Because people with ulterior financial motives manipulate them into thinking that immigration is bad.
It's a waste of time talking about metrics of immigration, because I don't think immigration has very much at all to do with immigration. All the things that people say are immigration are other things that people don't want to talk about, or is too difficult to explain quickly or they think other people actually want to hear it.
The only time metrics makes any effect is in the sort of positive effect, where people who live in very cosmopolitan areas, who are members of the elite, mix in circles where they are likely to come into contact with people who've come from around the world to lecture/surgeon/CEO/whatever. And then it's still basically an emotional reaction of positive personal experiences masquerading as metrics.
A net contribution is also fairly trivial and uninteresting piece of info. People aren't daft and the ones that care also know that.
I, for one, am perfectly happy with that. The whole point of PR is that all views are represented democratically - including ones that you or I may not like. That might go at least some of the way to reducing the danger of the disenfranchisement of significant portions of the population: something I suspect to have contributed to this mess we're now in.
I think you're onto something there. First past the post systems allow the major parties to ignore significant minority views. That's all very well until there is a referendum on that view.
Separate names with a comma.