Trump Wins!

[661-Pete]

To be a bit more serious for a moment:

Democracy does not work. Not sure what the alternative is, but reality is that modern democracy is a load of <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i>.

I suppose the correct statement is, "democracy does not work when it leads to the wrong answer". A natural human response to disappointment. And indeed, believe me: in my lifetime as a voter trying, in my small way, to uphold the processes of democracy, I have seen many 'wrong answers'!

Some are going to call me a 'bad loser' if you like, but I did recognise that the referendum campaign was punctuated by lie after lie after lie. Perpetrated by both sides. I suppose, what happened in the end, was that the electorate was duped by the bigger lies coming from the supporter of brexit side, and hence voted the way they did. But I also have an abhorrence of referendums - stemming partly, I suppose, from the historical abuse of referendums by the dictators and despots of this world - Hitler among them. I do not think they should have any place, ever, in a representative democracy.

What I see on the other side of the Atlantic, is a corrupt and rigged 'democratic' process yielding a false result. When the candidate with fewer votes 'wins', that's what I call it: I could put it as simple as that, and leave it at that. But, besides this fiasco of a 'vote', I can add that once again the lies and demagoguery seem to have prevailed on an ill-informed sector of the electorate.

I can't state my views any differently, no matter how much some on the far right may want to brand me a 'sore loser' or whatever. Let them do their worst!

[Psamathe]

To be a bit more serious for a moment:

Democracy does not work. Not sure what the alternative is, but reality is that modern democracy is a load of <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i>.

I suppose the correct statement is, "democracy does not work when it leads to the wrong answer"....

I think the recent trend for those seeking office to basically say anything (lies, complete garbage to play to the weaknesses of their electorate, etc.) means that the electorate are no longer deciding on a sensible basis. Politicians these days seems very prepared to promise anything and it seems a matter of days after getting their votes and getting into office that they are doing "oh, we didn't mean that ...".

It really has become the "Garbage in, garbage out".

e.g.

BorisNHS.jpg (23.01 KiB) Viewed 395 times

(But many other examples).

Ian

[Vorpal]

You might think that people would come to distrust politicians, or something.

[Psamathe]

You might think that people would come to distrust politicians, or something.

Overlooking that they do (mistrust politicians), I think the "say anything, promise anything" has become very extreme very recently and the electorate has not yet fully appreciated that at election time, politicians spout such complete garbage and impossible promises. Not long ago they would at least mostly stay within the bounds of possibility and it might take rather longer for them to renege on their promises. But now we seem to have very quickly moved to quite outlandish assertions and promises that are reneged on within days following the election.

Ian

[bovlomov]

"You only complain about democracy when it doesn't get the answer you want".

This has been flying around the internet a lot lately, and around these pages.

It simply isn't true. Anyone with even a fragile grasp of modern history knows that democracy is flawed. For one thing, it is a rather hazy concept - but whatever it is, it can be easily subverted by control of education and information, fiddling of boundaries and counts, patronage and bribery. There are serious problem with democracy in areas of Africa, for example, where the parties split along tribal lines and the majority tribe has permanent power.

People across the political spectrum know this and have been saying so. That includes those liberals. The only people who won't say so are the more manipulative politicians, who talk about democracy as a kind of perfect state of nature - not least when they are about to subvert it.

Most complaints about democracy aren't simply sour grapes. If they are then they are sour grapes of long standing. If the complaints are louder now, it may have something to do with the lies being bigger.

[661-Pete]

"You only complain about democracy when it doesn't get the answer you want".

This has been flying around the internet a lot lately, and around these pages.

I assume you realise that my paraphrase of the above remark, in a post above, was meant to be ironic! As too, presumably, was wahoofish's post.

[Psamathe]

"You only complain about democracy when it doesn't get the answer you want".

This has been flying around the internet a lot lately, and around these pages.

It simply isn't true. Anyone with even a fragile grasp of modern history knows that democracy is flawed. For one thing, it is a rather hazy concept - but whatever it is, it can be easily subverted by control of education and information, fiddling of boundaries and counts, patronage and bribery. There are serious problem with democracy in areas of Africa, for example, where the parties split along tribal lines and the majority tribe has permanent power.
...

I think a lot depends on what people mean by "democracy".

Does it mean rule by the electorate ? e.g. if we had a referendum in the UK asking if we should divert budgets to provide cycling improvements to £10 per person then the campaigns would focus on where the £10 per person was coming from and the rule of the masses would probably say no to such funding (ignoring e.g. how much GCHQ are spending monitoring everything about millions of innocent people). But does that make it the "right" decision for the country ?

Many issues are far more complex than simple yes/no decisions based on campaigns where those elite few who can afford the time and money to campaign are driven be personal interests and ideology rather than the good of the country, where many campaigning do not have to bear the consequences of the outcome, etc. so I can see a case for employing capable individuals who spend the time researching and debating the issues and make decisions in the interests of the country rather than the self interest and ideology of the few.

Trouble is that these days those few people we elect to fulfil that role seem neither capable nor working for the interests of the country. I think the democratic system as operated in the UK could work but is let down badly by those individuals who are putting themselves forward for election. That said, the House of Lords is a weird problem and whilst I disagree with the system (where politicians appoint individuals) I also think a fully elected house would make things worse; just like the Police commissioners it would become totally party based with candidates standing for Conservative/Labour/etc. and entirely dependent on the party (dependent on selection/re-selection) and it would just become identical to the Commons.

Ian

[661-Pete]

My view is that 'minorities matter'. I'm sure a lot of people agree with that in their hearts - even though they forget it in the pub, on the Clapham Omnibus - and in the polling-booth!

Anyway, I've been one of a minority all my life. Several minorities in fact. I'm used to it. But I still have a voice!

[bovlomov]

"You only complain about democracy when it doesn't get the answer you want".

This has been flying around the internet a lot lately, and around these pages.

I assume you realise that my paraphrase of the above remark, in a post above, was meant to be ironic! As too, presumably, was wahoofish's post.

Yes. I was talking about other persons on this forum, and about the accusation generally. Like you, I always vote for a losing party, so this is nothing new. In the case of Trump versus Clinton, it wasn't my vote, but I would have lost whoever triumphed.

[blackbike]

To be a bit more serious for a moment:

Democracy does not work. Not sure what the alternative is, but reality is that modern democracy is a load of <i>[inappropriate word removed]</i>.

I suppose the correct statement is, "democracy does not work when it leads to the wrong answer"....

I think the recent trend for those seeking office to basically say anything (lies, complete garbage to play to the weaknesses of their electorate, etc.) means that the electorate are no longer deciding on a sensible basis. Politicians these days seems very prepared to promise anything and it seems a matter of days after getting their votes and getting into office that they are doing "oh, we didn't mean that ...".

It really has become the "Garbage in, garbage out".

e.g.
BorisNHS.jpg
(But many other examples).

Ian

Let us give the NHS the £350 million ....

That is asking for permission to do something, and does not give anyone a guarantee it will happen. When we leave the EU our government will be able to give that £350 million to the NHS or to anything else it chooses, and that will only be possible because we voted Leave and the money does not have to be sent to Brussels.

It is surprising how many Remainers can't understand this perfectly simple campaign request to the electorate, especially as they claim to be clever and educated.

Letting someone do something does not mean they are compelled to do it.

[Psamathe]

To be a bit more serious for a moment:
I suppose the correct statement is, "democracy does not work when it leads to the wrong answer"....

I think the recent trend for those seeking office to basically say anything (lies, complete garbage to play to the weaknesses of their electorate, etc.) means that the electorate are no longer deciding on a sensible basis. Politicians these days seems very prepared to promise anything and it seems a matter of days after getting their votes and getting into office that they are doing "oh, we didn't mean that ...".

It really has become the "Garbage in, garbage out".

e.g.
BorisNHS.jpg
(But many other examples).

Ian

Let us give the NHS the £350 million ....

That is asking for permission to do something, and does not give anyone a guarantee it will happen. When we leave the EU our government will be able to give that £350 million to the NHS or to anything else it chooses, and that will only be possible because we voted Leave and the money does not have to be sent to Brussels.

It is surprising how many Remainers can't understand this perfectly simple campaign request to the electorate, especially as they claim to be clever and educated.

Letting someone do something does not mean they are compelled to do it.

It specifically says "... the £350 million the EU takes every week" - which is a complete lie.

Ian

[blackbike]

I think the recent trend for those seeking office to basically say anything (lies, complete garbage to play to the weaknesses of their electorate, etc.) means that the electorate are no longer deciding on a sensible basis. Politicians these days seems very prepared to promise anything and it seems a matter of days after getting their votes and getting into office that they are doing "oh, we didn't mean that ...".

It really has become the "Garbage in, garbage out".

e.g.
BorisNHS.jpg
(But many other examples).

Ian

Let us give the NHS the £350 million ....

That is asking for permission to do something, and does not give anyone a guarantee it will happen. When we leave the EU our government will be able to give that £350 million to the NHS or to anything else it chooses, and that will only be possible because we voted Leave and the money does not have to be sent to Brussels.

It is surprising how many Remainers can't understand this perfectly simple campaign request to the electorate, especially as they claim to be clever and educated.

Letting someone do something does not mean they are compelled to do it.

It specifically says "... the £350 million the EU takes every week" - which is a complete lie.

Ian

No it isn't. We are obliged to pay that much to Brussels and it takes it off us. It is actually £361 million. We do get rebates, but the slogan simply didn't mention them.

The slogan was carefully worded. It promised absolutely nothing and was factually correct.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-35943216

[Psamathe]

Let us give the NHS the £350 million ....

That is asking for permission to do something, and does not give anyone a guarantee it will happen. When we leave the EU our government will be able to give that £350 million to the NHS or to anything else it chooses, and that will only be possible because we voted Leave and the money does not have to be sent to Brussels.

It is surprising how many Remainers can't understand this perfectly simple campaign request to the electorate, especially as they claim to be clever and educated.

Letting someone do something does not mean they are compelled to do it.

It specifically says "... the £350 million the EU takes every week" - which is a complete lie.

Ian

No it isn't. We are obliged to pay that much to Brussels and it takes it off us. It is actually £361 million. We do get rebates, but the slogan simply didn't mention them.

The slogan was carefully worded. It promised absolutely nothing and was factually correct.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-e ... m-35943216

From the governments Statistics authority own web site, in particular "As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate."

Sir Andrew Dilnot, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority has said today:

Given the high level of public interest in the European Union referendum debate, it is vital that official statistics are used accurately, with important caveats and limitations explained.
The UK Statistics Authority is disappointed to note that there continue to be suggestions that the UK contributes £350 million to the EU each week, and that this full amount could be spent elsewhere (see Annex A).
As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate. We have also pointed out that there are payments received by the UK public and private sectors that are relevant here. The continued use of a gross figure in contexts that imply it is a net figure is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics.

So EU does not take money from the UK, UK gives money to the EU. and the amount paid is the net amount (after the rebate - "UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate").

Ian

[661-Pete]

The slogan was carefully worded. It promised absolutely nothing and was factually correct.

How many times has a slogan, later designated as "factually correct", been exploited to deliberately mislead voters?

"This would, at a stroke, reduce the rise in prices, increase production and reduce unemployment"

- On Tory proposals to reduce taxation, Edward Heath, 1970. Later ridiculed by his detractors.

[blackbike]

From the governments Statistics authority own web site, in particular "As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate."

Sir Andrew Dilnot, Chair of the UK Statistics Authority has said today:

Given the high level of public interest in the European Union referendum debate, it is vital that official statistics are used accurately, with important caveats and limitations explained.
The UK Statistics Authority is disappointed to note that there continue to be suggestions that the UK contributes £350 million to the EU each week, and that this full amount could be spent elsewhere (see Annex A).
As we have made clear, the UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate. We have also pointed out that there are payments received by the UK public and private sectors that are relevant here. The continued use of a gross figure in contexts that imply it is a net figure is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics.

So EU does not take money from the UK, UK gives money to the EU. and the amount paid is the net amount (after the rebate - "UK’s contribution to the EU is paid after the application of the rebate").

Ian

I can't see anything misleading at all. The figure mentioned in the slogan is factually correct for our gross, pre-rebate contribution to Brussels and nobody ever suggested it was the net amount.

It is not the duty of campaigners to fully explain everything to voters, especially in a slogan. Voters have the responsibility to inform themselves of the full facts, but if they choose to rely on slogans then that is entirely up to them and does not invalidate their vote.

I don't think people are concerned about what exact procedure is followed as we give the EU billions per year. The fact remains we are obliged to pay £361 million per week and then the EU kindly gives us some of our own money back to fund things we could have funded ourselves using the same cash, but with the condition that the EU gets to put its own symbol on them telling us the outright lie that they are 'EU funded'.

In a country like the UK which contributes to the EU, absolutely nothing is EU funded.

However, that did not stop many people lazily claiming that we do get EU funding.

For example

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexi ... -l8t9kp6gs

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/201 ... of-funding