Round 2...

[smokingboot]

So much better than Round 1.

Sky production values were a vast improvement on those of ITV. I must defer to steve_c's comments on my last entry, when he challenged my words about nobody benefiting...he was quite right. The country's talking, people are interested. Hopefully this will be reflected in the turn out. If the libdems do well, it may well indicate a time for constitutional reform. A powerful time for British politics, and not just another election...

In the Hammer Horror story that is the British Election 2010, Nick is our hero, square jawed, clear eyed, a little disingenuous perhaps? I felt my first real ripple of disapproval for him when, as an example of why we should stay in the European Union, he quoted the co-operation of European police forces to bust a paedophile ring. Uh, right, so we couldn't do that without being part of the EU? It's like invoking the nazis. I'm pro-Europe to a greater extent, but that way of justifying it was a very cheap ploy. It made me sad to see him use it. Having said that, it was my only real demerit against him.

Cameron burst out of his bubblewrap, a determined escapee from Vincent Price's House of Wax and tried to talk like a human being. I'm going to go a bit wild here and say he nearly succeeded. I applaud his basic attempt at animation, particularly when it came to defence, which I think was his strongest moment. But having listened to him, it is clear that he is just too right wing for me.

And then...the cabinet of Dr Polidori rattled. The wind howled outside the Arnolfini. A raven cawed and the cabinet door creaked open. And Gordo emerged.

Do not think I detest Brown with the special loathing I keep for Galloway, or Baroness Davros herself. I just don't like him very much, and I have finally worked out why; he keeps trying to be the authoritiiii. the elder statesman, the one with gravitas, the nation's daddy. Well, I don't need another daddy thanks, one's quite enough. At least mine would occasionally give me pocket money. As for the moment when Gordo described his rivals as reminding him of his two boys squabbling at bathtime, the audience liked it, but suddenly all I could see were Clegg and Cameron fighting naked in a bath, and Gordo sitting beside them stroking the towels and perusing their pale bodies, that terrible smile on his face.

What a peculiar election this is.

Comments

[blackcurrants.livejournal.com]

And how delightful it is for me, to see it through your eyes!
I could watch the debates on C-Span but I can't bring myself to do it. Hence, reportage is my only access point. I like yours best of all.

[cat-that-walks.livejournal.com]

'If the libdems do well, it may well indicate a time for constitutional reform.'
What kind of reform?

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Hello Mr Beard!

Re constitutional reform I don't know...proportional representation? Some say that leads to hamstrung government, government swayed by minority groups in order to achieve anything... but, bad enough if we ignore, say, 1 in 5 of our electorate. Suppose it's 1 in 3? What kind of democracy do we really practice if that's the case?

And behind that, the shadow of it; the mob's an ugly leader, democracy only works via education and enlightenment. Can we be sure we have that?

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

deeheeelightful to hear you say that! Thank you!

Watching the debates isn't necesarily cringeworthy. If I was teaching a class of media students, I would tell them to watch it, to gauge the advice that each candidate must be getting. xx

[cat-that-walks.livejournal.com]

I dislike PR. Italy at last count used PR, that`s why their governments don`t last. Plus let us not forget that PR gave us a German Chancellor called Adolf...

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

Just as a positive message on PR, for example, most of the European countries managing to cope best with the recession are the ones with PR.

We tend only to look at the ones with problems that have PR, but by and large it has tended to actually strengthen most countries ability to get things done - and by consensus politics instead of narrow ideological hubris. You tend to get more practical action that is based on an actual analysis of the situation instead of dogma unthinkingly applied with absolute power to push it through even its not actually going to help (which is what we get with FPTP).

In the instances where PR creates problems I suspect it's largely because their society is historically fragmented into competing regions with very different priorities and needs and a weak sense of national interests.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

No - Italy's governments don't last because Italy as a nation is largely a fiction invented in the early part of the 19th century by Italian nationalists and monarchists loyal to the House of Savoy endeavouring to establish a united kingdom encompassing the entire Italian Peninsula. Before that time the entire post-Roman history of Italy was that of squabbling city-states mounting frequent mercenary wars against each other. There was no such nation as Italy prior to 1816 and they have only been a republic since 1946.

Italy is a terrible example to use for any serious examination of how PR might function in a country with a more stable history and with a stronger national identity like the UK. Better to compare us to somewhere like Germany or the Netherlands, but taking on board your comment about Hitler, it was not PR that led to his rise but the punitive demands of the post war settlement for WW1 which helped create a climate of desperation in which such a man could come to power. He then engineered a suppression of other parties following the Reichstag fire and used violence and anti-communist hysteria to win the election. He would quite possibly have come to power in a FPTP system as well.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

I have heard both these arguments put forward before. I'm not sure how I feel about PR, but it seems obvious that a country in which the least popular party could end up the most powerful in parliament is no democracy, and a society in which a third of the voting populace is ignored will be neither stable nor happy.

[cat-that-walks.livejournal.com]

One problem that PR seems to generate is the loss of the local MP. In a system where MP`s are elected on a 'one MP per x votes nationally' basis local MP`s cannot exist.
PR also encourages small parties by giving them seats, now while I have nothing against the Monster Raving Looney Party, I find the idea of the BNP getting seats in Parliament disconcerting...
The problem is that as Sir Winston Churchill said 'democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.'

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

In all probability any electoral system will have it's weaknesses and flaws - democracies (whatever their type) tend to be very poor at handling problems that need long term solutions/planning and are unpopular but essential whatever system is in use (Dictatorships and Monarchies are the best for those sorts of things) - but if you want to have a democracy it does at least need to have a system where individual votes count to some degree.

I would personally like to see it go a lot further than PR and include a shake up of how politics is funded, amongst other issues, and maybe even a massive re-think of how democracy works. There certainly needs to be a lot less ability for wealth and or big business interests to influence government. It's government for the people, not for big business and the rich.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

It depends what sort of PR you have:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

Oh - while I think about - the other issue with the way politics works in the UK the Lib Dems want to address is party funding. They want to limit the amount of funding a single party can get from an individual or special interest block.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

I find it interesting that you suggest using Germany as an example, given that it has a very similar history to Italy i.e. being squabbling city states and smaller kingdoms until the nineteenth century when one of the kingdoms decided it wanted more power. And of course it spent half of the last century occupied and partitioned.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

A good point - though the nature of Germany as a nation and it's various splits is slightly different - where Italy was an amalgamation of small city states that had not been joined since the days of the Roman Empire, Germany had at various times been part of a far larger 'super state' encompassing what are now completely separate countries - the Holy Roman Empire.

Where it starts to look like a situation with warring states is the Thirty Years war, and then you have the formation of something resembling the much smaller modern Germany and then the German wars of unification - but the period from 800 to 1618 had seen Germany as part of something larger that was comparatively stable compared to Italy.

I think it is an important distinction that Germany formed out of something larger where Italy formed something larger out of smaller states. Italy was not a part of something bigger than itself since Rome and did not have the same sense of a larger national identity that Germany did.

My point with PR being that to work well on a national scale you need areas to have a cohesive sense of a national identity (so regional needs can be related to national ones with less squabbling), and that countries like the UK and Germany have a far stronger one with a longer historical tradition than Italy does. In fact arguably, since both Scotland and Wales have their own Parliaments now (separating out the UKs areas with a historical sense of their own separate identity), the UK is in an even stronger position for PR to work very differently than in Italy than Germany is.

My argument is largely about the particular forms of national identity as opposed to regional and how people consider where their interests lie.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

True, but who pays for this government for the people? Who pays for the NHS, the benefits system, the roads?

Re state funding for political parties, I think it's a fine idea if it can be done, because paymasters, be they big business or big unions, have agendas.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

In the end its our taxes that pay for things - and this brings to mind 'no taxation without representation'. Most of this nation have not been actually represented by governments that have gained massive overall seat majorities on a minority popular vote. Which is why we need PR desperately.

A general party fund from taxes is one funding approach - another would be to just level the playing field completely and ask why should any party have or need huge amounts of money anyway? Just make it illegal for any political party to accept funds from anything other than individual membership fees and set membership fees at a flat rate. The result would be poorer parties but also less money for them to spend on ad agencies and spin. It would also create a level playing field.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

In the end its our taxes that pay for things Exactly. And we don't get money without business, so, while we have to curb the rise of Corporationations, we can't forget that business makes jobs makes money makes taxes makes services. I find this all a bit horrible, and would love a kinder alternative, but until we have some, we have to find a balance that doesn't chase off our money makers, or exploit our most vulnerable.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

We don't get the money with business at the moment either alas - unless you are in the top 10% income bracket of the nation (who avoid paying as much tax as they can). The harsh reality is that the only way business have been able to sustain profits has been through the average consumer going into debt - largely because in real terms peoples incomes have hardly kept pace with inflation and in many instances have been lower, more people are now in poorly paid temp/part time work and we have all been facing massive increases in our bills for essentials like food and utility bills. This has largely been happening so those on the rich list can maximise their own profit at everyone else's expense.

We are, quite simply, being made poorer in real terms and this, while it has not impacted the tax situation much (since we legally have to pay tax) is leading to a drop in spending which in turn negatively impacts the economy and leads smaller businesses to collapse which then creates unemployment that does affect tax revenue.

I hope that argument makes sense - it's not an easy one to express succinctly.

[smokingboot.livejournal.com]

Peter, I'm not sure about this...the top 10% income bracket of the nation (who avoid paying as much tax as they can

As opposed to the benefits bounty babymaker?

The harsh reality is that the only way business have been able to sustain profits has been through the average consumer going into debt

I don't understand this. So, the retailer on the corner who keeps his shop open all hours and charges extra for the convenience is somehow responsible for his neighbour's inability to pay their mortgage?

Largely because in real terms peoples incomes have hardly kept pace with inflation and in many instances have been lower,

Yes, I understand that people have been on wage freezes and worse but I don't see how this has resulted in more people [are] now in poorly paid temp/part time work.I don't see how the two correlate.

And we have all been facing massive increases in our bills for essentials like food and utility bills. This has largely been happening so those on the rich list can maximise their own profit at everyone else's expense.

Certainly there are companies out there whose behaviour has been deplorable - witness the utility price spikes. And certainly I would prefer not to shop at, say, Tescos. Now, suppose Tescos goes under. How many jobs are lost? Where's the benefit in that?

Bear in mind, I am a bit of a financial idiot. You have probably made a great argument I am too obtuse to understand!

Divisions into Evil Rich (grasping, greedy, without conscience) and Evil Poor (lazy, stupid, without conscience) will not help the situation. We must stop punishing people for their circumstances,good or bad, because those who feel resented will not be constructive members of our society. Either they'll turn into threats on the street, or they'll f**k off to a far away beach and take their money with them. Neither is useful.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

The amount lost to the nation through benefit fraud is considerably smaller than that lost by Tax avoidance.

No- my point was that economic activity has been sustained largely via debt (part of the reason we had a recession) and that this debt has been considerably exasperated by dramatic rises in the cost of essentials by big business, not by small business. The cost of food and utilities in particular.

The increase in people in poorly paid/temp/part time work has been a major result of the recession. People have moved en mass from stable full time employment into these lately.

I work as a temp for Tescos - their actual prices (and profits) in real terms have been surging upwards. You are paying for this. The wages of Tesco employees are not increasing in kind unless they are at the top and/or share holders.

Its not strictly an evil/rich issue since some rich people do put back into the economy - but actually lot of others activity takes money out of it,and especially out of the public sector and into the private.

[hybridartifacts.livejournal.com]

I agree about punishing people because of their circumstances being a bad thing btw - my point with tax is that just that many people seek ways to avoid paying it when they can afford to and get away with it, when people too poor to hire clever accounts end up paying the full whack - so in a sense poor but honest people end up subsiding people with a greater ability to pay. Which I think is a bit unfair.

I think my argument is probably a bit obtuse btw - its certainly not a run of the mill straight obvious cause and effect one, but is trying to take into account various factors that inter-relate, just not always not directly. I could of course just be completely wide of the mark and being an idiot.