Why this farce?

[PeterRS]

Am I alone? Horrified when I see people having to queue up for a dozen or more hours to make their vote in a general election during a pandemic? Amazed when I see a so-called pastor place an illegal ballot box outside his church? Aghast that one of the main parties places a series of fake ballot boxes around a major city and then refuses to take them away even though they are in fact illegal? Staggered that a country continues to stick with an anachronistic electoral system that has 50 different states using different methods of voting for its citizens to cast votes in what is a nationwide general election? Florida's hanging chads became a tragedy for America but a joke around the world. That a tight election was then decided by highly paid lawyers and a Supreme Court packed with justices loyal to the two main parties beggars belief. 

The USA holds itself up as the beacon of democracy worldwide. What I see on television every evening is more like a farce. Few other democratic countries can rest of their laurels for they have systems that are also way out of date. The constituency system in the UK is based on what existed centuries ago when only landowners could vote. In only very few countries does the man or woman who actually gains the majority of all votes win a general election. The many dictators in our world must be laughing their heads off.

[TotallyOz]

It is disgusting and horrible. America is now a true disgrace when it comes to democracy and free elections. For years, American sent observers to other countries to ensure fair elections as that was our hallmark. However, now, other countries want to send observers to America. My, on my, how the tides have turned.

[vinapu]

46 minutes ago, Michael said:

..... America is now a true disgrace when it comes to democracy and free elections........

and it's only for Americans to repair it. Nobody will invade her  or put on embargo to make USA in desired shape so unfortunately country can't taste  medicine it's prescribing to others 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, PeterRS said:

The constituency system in the UK is based on what existed centuries ago when only landowners could vote.

The UK constituencies are not even the same size.    A few years ago, I noted the largest was the Isle of Wight with about 100,000 voters.     The smallest, in Scotland had about 25,000.   So a vote in part of Scotland has about 4x the effect in the south island (as they call it).

Then the Scottish MPs go to Westminster and are allowed to vote on policies that don't affect Scotland, as they have their own parliament.

Tony Blair won one election and he got about 70 more seats in England than the Conservatives, despite the Conservatives actually getting MORE votes in England.    The Conservatives were winning rural seats by majorities of over 20,000 and Labour were winning loads of other seats with much smaller majorities.  

Having said all that, I think the biggest problem is the quality of candidates.

The UK had a "choice" between a communist and BJ at the last election.

The US narrowly avoided Bernie Sanders, so they get Joe Biden v Donald Trump.   We need processes that puts forward candidates with ability, integrity & energy.

[Vessey]

All UK consituencies, and local government wards have their boundaries reviewed every few years to try and ensure a level of equality of size of population, although in sparsly populated rural areas that becomes more problematic.

All candidates have comparatively modest, legally set ceilings on their individual election expenses, although political parties do not. Anyone can stand at a local election providing they can get a relatively small number of signatures on a nomination paper. The same is true for parlimentary candidates, although they have to put up a deposit (still relatively modest) that is returnable win or loose providing they get a small minimum number of votes. 

So in the UK money only has a significant role in the blanket advertising etc that political parties can put forward at election times.

It does seem though that in the USA candidates can spend what they like and go to town on outspending each other, so individual 'donors' can become critically important to candidates.

UK television news and political discussion is heavily centred at the moment on the US presidential elections and I must say, as an outsider looking in, that I am astonished that from out of so great a country as the USA, these two candidates were the best it could up with.

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, Vessey said:

........ US presidential elections and I must say, as an outsider looking in, .........

problem is that due to weight of American presidency in the world affairs nobody is really outsider

[anddy]

I agree with pretty much everything said in the previous posts. Much of my life I have looked up to the US in many respects, including it's democracy (even though we've had a very good one ourselves in Germany, that now as some issues too, but those pale in comparison to the US). But now I am very disillusioned, despise American politics and view it as a pseudo-democracy (typing this last word I made a very fitting typo: democrazy. Indeed!). Some reasons have been mentioned by other posters, there are many more, rampant and grotesque gerrymandering for example. Or active voter suppression (hello? In a leading democracy?). Or cumbersome voter registration (in Germany 100% of the electorate get their voter card (an actual post card) automatically before any election). The list goes on. Shocking.

As for the UK, the first-past-the-post system is outdated and in a multi-party system has become thoroughly undemocratic, too. In the last election the UK had a stark choice between a communist and BJ, true. But fact is, that the majority of the voters did NOT vote for BJ (please correct me if this fact is, in fact, wrong. But I believe it is true). Similar to the last win by Trump win without winning the popular vote. 

Conclusion: democracy is in a sorry state the world over  

[Guest]

The alternative to a first past the post electoral system is proportional representation.  

With this system, you can have a situation where a few small & extreme parties hold the balance of power and can exert disproportionate influence.   As we see in various parts of the world.    I'm therefore happy to remain with first past the post.   Less chance of an AfD getting traction.       What I would like to see is some filters in place so we get more competent candidates and also something that encourages people who have actually achieved things to go into politics later in life.   Perhaps even people who actually know how to manage.

[vinapu]

my problem with " first past the post " is that large part of population may be left without representation. To extreme , in country withy say , 500 constituencies theoretically one party needs only 500 more votes nationwide than all others to have all deputies in parliament. 

Other is that practically only one constituency is electing prime minister. Party may have absolute majority and lose on only handful of constituencies , one of them is where it's choice for PM was starting and lost.

Bottom line is either system has good and bad sides

[PeterRS]

On 10/17/2020 at 7:40 AM, vinapu said:

my problem with " first past the post " is that large part of population may be left without representation. To extreme , in country withy say , 500 constituencies theoretically one party needs only 500 more votes nationwide than all others to have all deputies in parliament. 

Other is that practically only one constituency is electing prime minister. Party may have absolute majority and lose on only handful of constituencies , one of them is where it's choice for PM was starting and lost.

Bottom line is either system has good and bad sides

Winston Churchill gave some marvellous speeches to rally his country as it faced Nazi Germany. At other times he expressed his views on the state of the world as he saw it. In these days of Trump, I especially like this one the more so as it was uttered many decades before not just the internet but also direct dial international telephone calls.

"A lie gets half way around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

But it is his views on democracy that remain of interest, especially this one to parliament in 1947

"No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government apart from all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

But with power brokers in many countries even including the USA now doing everything possible to get rid of many of the institutions essential to the practice of democracy, where do we go from here? If one man one vote and first past the post are no longer generally accepted, what takes its place?

[Guest]

First past the post is fine with me.

What I would like to see is modifications to the process so that we get some decent candidates on the ballot paper.   UK politicians have typically studied some nonsense like Politics, Philosophy and Economics, typically at Oxbridge, then achieved absolutely nothing of significance before being elected as an MP.  

So when they are in power and have to manage something, it's to be expected that they don't have a clue.   

What we need is more scientists, engineers & above all else, people who have run a successful business (ie without bankruptcies).

[Travellerdave]

Z909 your last post resonates with me. In the distant past many of the talented people you mention would have been motivated to go into politics both local and national. Very few do that now particularly into local government. The standard of local elected leaders in the U.K. is usually very low. Mainly they are people that have not succeeded in any other field and have a lot of time on their hands. The problem is that the people you mention don’t want to stand for election. A previous mayor of our town told me that he had frequented suggested to good prospects that they might like to stand only to get a negative response.

[Vessey]

7 hours ago, Travellerdave said:

Z909 your last post resonates with me. In the distant past many of the talented people you mention would have been motivated to go into politics both local and national. Very few do that now particularly into local government. The standard of local elected leaders in the U.K. is usually very low. Mainly they are people that have not succeeded in any other field and have a lot of time on their hands. The problem is that the people you mention don’t want to stand for election. A previous mayor of our town told me that he had frequented suggested to good prospects that they might like to stand only to get a negative response.

It is true that English Local Government can produce a very broad spectrum of elected Councillors, and yes, attracting prospective candidates can be problematic. But that broad spectrum can include people from a very wide range of backgrounds and work experiences at all levels from shop-floor to management, from the professions and from the self employed and just about anywhere inbetween. Many retirees become Councillors, and precisely because they have a lot of time on their hands, but they bring with them a lifetime of experience. For me the one principal saving grace about local Councillors is that most, regardless of political persuasion, are there motivated with a simple desire to benefit their own local communities, rather than see their role as a stepping stone to higher political ambitions.

But what of Thai local government? Does anyone have any experience or understanding about how it works, and what sort of people fill City Hall in Pattaya for example? And what sort of influence and decisions they can take a local level?

[PeterRS]

Im good at airing the problem but lousy at offering solutions. I agree wholeheartedly with z909 about the quality or lack thereof of candidates. but then who selects the candidates? Political parties. As long as you have parties and first past the post, you have division and a large chunk of each constituency not represented. My parents generation accepted this because they sincerely believed that whoever was elected would represent all the electors. Now politicians beholden to a party have to tow the party line, however that represents the views of the electors.

Over the weekend I was been reading of the recent case in the UK of the excellent Manchester United soccer player, Marcus Rashford. At the age of just 22 and from a single parent underprivileged background, he led a successful movement to persuade the UK government to continue school meals for kids from poor backgrounds during the summer vacation. Johnson's party had vetoed the idea and then had to do a hugely embarrassing U turn. A few days ago an opposition party tabled a motion that kids from poor homes should again benefit with meals during the half term and Xmas vacations. Johnson forced a party line and it was defeated. Instead of bitching about it, Rashford and his team set about talking with cafes, restaurants, other suppliers and even local councils to try and  ensure decent meals for the kids. A petition signed by 2,000 pediatricians stated that ensuring young kids have enough nourishment is one of the most "basic human responsibilities." 

The huge outpouring of support in the country has yet again totally shamed a government that has wasted vast amounts of sterling in its increasingly hopeless attempts to control the corona virus. A fraction of that could easily provide nourishing meals for kids from homes where their parents now just don't have the money to buy enough food..

The excuses put forward by some allegedly intelligent MPs were disgraceful in the extreme, as a result of which they have had to apologise in the face of massive public opposition. One ruling party MP took to social media linking free meals for kids with"crack dens" and "brothels". Utter idiocy! It seems as though Johnson's government will once again have to do another even more massively embarrassing U turn thanks to the passionate humanitarian efforts of a humble young 22 year old wise beyond his years.

If this is the result of democracy, there is something rotten about the present system of governance.

[Guest]

An alternative point of view to that published by PeterRS:

1  The UK already has an extensive social security safety net, including payment of child benefits which cover food costs.     If we continually increase the benefits & taxes to pay for them, then we remove the incentive for people to be productive.  

2  Over the last few decades we have had Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties represented in government (Liberals in coalition).   None of the other parties has provided free school meals during vacation, so I see no reason why the Conservatives should be hammered for it.

3 Child obesity is by far the larger problem in our country.

As our social security system is already generous, I see no reason to increase support.   If the parents are too feckless to use the child benefits to feed their children, then perhaps they should extend the free school meals in combination with a downward adjustment in child benefits, so the net expense is the same.

Note:  I live in the UK, so I see what goes on and I pay UK taxes, so am entitled to representation.

 

 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, z909 said:

1  The UK already has an extensive social security safety net, including payment of child benefits which cover food costs.     If we continually increase the benefits & taxes to pay for them, then we remove the incentive for people to be productive.  

2  Over the last few decades we have had Conservative, Labour and Liberal parties represented in government (Liberals in coalition).   None of the other parties has provided free school meals during vacation, so I see no reason why the Conservatives should be hammered for it.

3 Child obesity is by far the larger problem in our country.

As our social security system is already generous, I see no reason to increase support.   If the parents are too feckless to use the child benefits to feed their children, then perhaps they should extend the free school meals in combination with a downward adjustment in child benefits, so the net expense is the same.

Note:  I live in the UK, so I see what goes on and I pay UK taxes, so am entitled to representation.

That is obviously one viewpoint. The other is that these are not normal times. The world is in the grips of a pandemic when partly as a result of the UK government's near total ineptitude wages have been substantially reduced  for huge numbers and others have no opportunity of finding work. As a direct result existing social security safety nets have huge holes in them. From what I read the government's view has been criticised by so many in Britain the majority clearly seem to agree with Rashford and the pediatricians. 

There seems to be a near universal view amongst some that everyone should work for a living and that state subsidies are in many cases a disincentive to work.  I defy anyone to try and argue that view at the present time. Johnson's government has made mistake after mistake after mistake. He has not even sacked his main advisor who twice deliberately broke the lockdown rules he himself had helped draw up. Break the rules and you should be out. Period. And every government has a duty to ensure that its young children at least have food on the table.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, PeterRS said:

Johnson's government has made mistake after mistake after mistake. He has not even sacked his main advisor who twice deliberately broke the lockdown rules he himself had helped draw up. Break the rules and you should be out. Period. And every government has a duty to ensure that its young children at least have food on the table.

I agree they have made mistake after mistake.

However, his main advisor, Dominic Cummings broke the rules once and certain media outlets printed allegations that he broke the rules twice, with a second visit to Durham.   Mr Cummings denied this and said had he made a second trip, there would be photographic evidence of it.  Which seems very likely.   No newspaper has printed evidence to prove a second trip.     

I imagine the same newspapers would complain like hell if a Conservative MP tried to get a civil servant sacked by embellishing a story, but they think it's OK for the newspapers to do this.

Incidentally, according to an investigation by the FT, DC was present as an observer at a SAGE meeting back in March.    After hearing the projections, he was the one who asked if that's the predicted death rate, why are you not recommending a lock down right now ?     The SAGE people started to agree and we got a lockdown, which prevented bad results getting even worse.  In a government stuffed full or muppets, if an advisor is useful, we are probably better off with him than without.

Also, in case anyone thinks the Labour party would be better, just look at the repressive & illogical tactics employed by them in Wales.

 

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, z909 said:

I agree they have made mistake after mistake.

However, his main advisor, Dominic Cummings broke the rules once and certain media outlets printed allegations that he broke the rules twice, with a second visit to Durham.   Mr Cummings denied this and said had he made a second trip, there would be photographic evidence of it.  Which seems very likely.   No newspaper has printed evidence to prove a second trip.     

I imagine the same newspapers would complain like hell if a Conservative MP tried to get a civil servant sacked by embellishing a story, but they think it's OK for the newspapers to do this.

Incidentally, according to an investigation by the FT, DC was present as an observer at a SAGE meeting back in March.    After hearing the projections, he was the one who asked if that's the predicted death rate, why are you not recommending a lock down right now ?     The SAGE people started to agree and we got a lockdown, which prevented bad results getting even worse.  In a government stuffed full or muppets, if an advisor is useful, we are probably better off with him than without.

Also, in case anyone thinks the Labour party would be better, just look at the repressive & illogical tactics employed by them in Wales.

Is blatantly breaking the rules once not bad enough? Is the most senior Prime Ministerial adviser who helped write the rules permitted unilaterally to break them by driving about 400 kms from his home during a total lockdown without any resultant sanction? Of course not. He should have been fired. Period. To argue otherwise is pure nonsense. That view has absolutely zilch to do with which party is in government. So what if he is useful? I'll bet tens if not hundreds of thousands of others in the UK felt they were also useful and also had valid reasons for breaking the lockdown.

Such hypocrisy and such we are holier than thou attitude is not confined to the UK. If the US Senate does confirm the new homophobic judge today after the Republicans unilaterally changed the rules and then had its most senior representatives with hands on hearts blatantly lie on camera more than once, it illustrates once more the depths to which US democracy has sunk. In politics there is lying and there is lying. These were the depths of disgrace.

No, thats not Donald Trump, although he has taken US politics into a very black swamp. That is the conniving bastard Mitch McConnell and his perfectly awful surrogate  Lindsay Graham. Hopefully they will themselves be confined to the depths of a miserable swamp by being roundly defeated next week.

[vinapu]

5 hours ago, z909 said:

 

As our social security system is already generous, I see no reason to increase support.   If the parents are too feckless to use the child benefits to feed their children, then perhaps they should extend the free school meals in combination with a downward adjustment in child benefits, so the net expense is the same.

 

 

4 hours ago, PeterRS said:

That is obviously one viewpoint. The other is that these are not normal times.

I don't see contradiction between those two views.

Yes , it should be exemption for unusual times but too generous benefits are discouraging some people from working and they can't be blamed for it in this era of cheap calculators.

I'm not in UK but even where I'm I can notice that some people did quite  well financially out of pandemic simply because some benefits were exceedingly generous.

I understand that speed of providing help did not allow for ironing  scheme out so don't blame government entirely but few safeguards could be installed easily and they were not ( people were allowed to apply and collect unemployment benefits even if their duly filed income taxes are not showing any employment income in last 10 years  as primary example )

[Travellerdave]

As I understand it the kids don’t actually get a meal as such as the school kitchens are usually closed. What they get is a weekly voucher of £15 which can be used in food stores. So it is not necessarily the case that health eating is promoted. The kids parents can use the vouchers to cover purchases of all products. About 15% of families benefit. In school times free meals are given to all of the younger kids (about 5 to 8 years) even those from wealthy households. There’s a lot of votes in such schemes.

The left wing promotes benefits such as this in that it promotes the view that the ‘ State will provide”. I very much doubt if many kids in Britain “go to bed hungry”. In fact my observation is that some kids from lower income families could benefit from less food not more. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Travellerdave said:

The left wing promotes benefits such as this in that it promotes the view that the ‘ State will provide”. I very much doubt if many kids in Britain “go to bed hungry”. In fact my observation is that some kids from lower income families could benefit from less food not more. 

I agree entirely.   Over eating is the bigger risk I see in our younger generations.   If a minute percentage of kids do go to bed hungry, it will be because their feckless parents are spending the social security money on drugs, alcohol or whatever.   

Promoting the idea that the state should provide is also bad.  

Apparently some schools in Singapore have posters on the wall with reminders such as "the world does not owe us a living" & I much prefer this direction.

[khaolakguy]

On 10/26/2020 at 11:33 AM, z909 said:

I agree they have made mistake after mistake.

However, his main advisor, Dominic Cummings broke the rules once and certain media outlets printed allegations that he broke the rules twice, with a second visit to Durham.   Mr Cummings denied this and said had he made a second trip, there would be photographic evidence of it.  Which seems very likely.   No newspaper has printed evidence to prove a second trip.     

 

 

Dominic stated in his Rose Garden that his telephonic records demonstrated that the second accusation was untrue. However he has asked many times to share those records, so that he could demonstrate that the accusation was untrue. Unfortunately he has not been willing to do that! Funny that, you claim that you have evidence, and everyone is just supposed to believe your statement without actually supplying it. 

[PeterRS]

8 hours ago, khaolakguy said:

Dominic stated in his Rose Garden that his telephonic records demonstrated that the second accusation was untrue. However he has asked many times to share those records, so that he could demonstrate that the accusation was untrue. Unfortunately he has not been willing to do that! Funny that, you claim that you have evidence, and everyone is just supposed to believe your statement without actually supplying it. 

More doubt on Cummings actions. This has been reported in several UK newspapers of which this is one.

Quote

Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have been handed a 225-page dossier urging them to investigate Dominic Cummings for allegedly perverting the course of justice, in relation to a statement about his journeys to the north-east of England at the height of the pandemic.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/30/dossier-alleges-cummings-may-have-perverted-course-of-justice-in-account-of-lockdown-trip

On 10/26/2020 at 6:33 PM, z909 said:

In a government stuffed full or muppets, if an advisor is useful, we are probably better off with him than without.

Even though he broke the law and may have perverted the course of justice? One law for government advisors and one for the rest of the country, obviously.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, PeterRS said:

More doubt on Cummings actions. This has been reported in several UK newspapers of which this is one.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/oct/30/dossier-alleges-cummings-may-have-perverted-course-of-justice-in-account-of-lockdown-trip

Even though he broke the law and may have perverted the course of justice? One law for government advisors and one for the rest of the country, obviously.

I would look for a more reliable and unbiased publication than the Guardian.

 

In the case of Mr Cummings, the press published a number of accusations, some of which were true and some of which were probably not.    This was all very tiresome and the press seemed to be more interested in hounding Mr Cummings than reporting on the pandemic.

Mr Cummings replied with a press conference to refute some of their claims.       This was neither a police interview nor a court appearance.       That's not perverting the course of justice, as it's not part of the judicial process.      

On the other hand, if you choose to interpret this as perverting the course of justice, then surely the material published by the newspapers is also perverting the course of justice to an equal extent ?

If the newspapers are embellishing a story on a daily basis, is there any reason why the victim of this harassment should not issue any statement to refute some of the allegations ?       In a country that values free speech, I cannot think of any reason why Mr Cummings should not have issued a press conference. 

 

[PeterRS]

1 hour ago, z909 said:

I would look for a more reliable and unbiased publication than the Guardian.

Oh come on! I specifically stated "several UK newspapers". So you don't believe me. Here are more -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dominic-cummings-barnard-castle-durham-coronavirus-police-prosecution-nazir-afzal-b1454947.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8899061/Dominic-Cummings-face-prosecution-breaking-lockdown-says-former-prosecutor.html

https://breakingnewstv.in/dominic-cummings-225-page-file-alleges-aide-dedicated-six-covid-breaches/

Is there anything there right wing enough for you? I find it hard to square the accusation of possible perversion of the course of justice backed up by a 220 something page report, an accusation made by a former Chief Crown Prosecutor, with your view that the whole business is "very tiresome". The man broke his own regulations. He jmay have lied. An inquiry with testimony from the witnesses who state he lied should surely clear that up. The man should have been fired on the spot.