Boris's Johnson, Liberalism, The BBC - it's all here..

[onebatmother]

Anyone want to continue the sick-at-heart/flushed-with-triumph thread.

We were just discussing the BBC and liberalism.

Ooooooh, you've been a subject of Newsnight Review.

I do find Greer a little unhinged in her role as arts commentator - her column in the Grauniad always leaves me, like, 'you what?'

"Do you know it was raised on the porn thread?"

Indeed.

Thank you v much Swede. I'm pretty exhausted from the effort of it all tbh. As you could see - I bloody carried that thread [barely on it emoticon]

The woman gave a feminist critique of a children's film. I wouldn't worry too much onebat.

Absolufreakinglutely Iorek. See my earlier posts about ear-waggling.

You are astonishingly perceptive to bring Big Brother into the mix. Not occurred to me at all, but absolutely makes sense in a cultural crit sense.

I don't know what the answer is though.

Iorek, I think it's unfair to assume that people are that shallow.

I don't know which side you were on (slacker..not read thread) but if you don't like the result it's like saying people voted that way because they are stupid.

I do think introducing PR to general elections might be part of the solution. Yes, I know BJ was elected under a PR system, but I wonder whether the general malaise in our democracy is partly related to the fact that very few electors feel confident that their votes will make a blind bit of different to anything at all.

By malaise you mean?

I don't think it's a question of shallowness stuffitall. (Though you might allow the vanquished to make vast cultural generalizations to make ourselves feel better, for the next, say, three days)

I think that it is very difficult not to be affected by 'the general way of things'. And at the moment, Big Brother is the general way of things.

You don't have to be stupid to vote here... but it helps!

by malaise she means the fact that only 3 people vote, on average.

By 'general malaise' I mean low turnouts, joke candidates, poor understanding of the issues on the part of large swathes of the electorate - not 'victories by candidates I dislike'.

Yes I saw the ear-waggling. Have just got in and was dismayed to see the other thread had closed for business. How dare Germaine Greer criticise your work? She's very patchy anyway imo.

Re the Big Brother thing, I would go so far as to speculate that if we* hadn't all got used to voting on these TV popularity shows (for which remember the turnout has been consistently higher than in real elections), Boris wouldn't have stood a chance.

*by "we" I don't mean us here of course...

Marina Hyde had a great one on Friday - 'You don't have to have suffered a recent major head trauma to work here, but it helps!' (re. Geri Halliwell's new book)

well turnout was up in London, wasn't it?

I think you're wrong.

In some areas, where a vote against Labour has traditionally meant nothing at all, there has been a turnaround. People have seen their votes make a change in those areas.

A change like this does not indicate malaise, except in the losing party, certainly not malaise in the process.

Hello Iorek. My boyis (maybe) beginning the mini-book of you that they've got as a free gift in packs of Cheerios. I think about you daily, therefore.

I'm not sure PR is the answer to voter disengagement though. The European parliament is elected on a PR basis and turn out is pathetic.

In some senses PR is less likely to get the result you want because it all gets so messy. There have been reports of officials in London telling voters they weren't allowed to put the same candidate first and second (which actually you can).

And the party list system is downright dangerous - we need politicians who are prepared, occasionally, to go against the party line, not lickspittles who do as they are told by the whips. I also think the link betwee politician and constituency is crucial and some forms of PR would break that. I may not vote for my MP's party but he still has a duty to represent me.

Yes stuffit, my argument doesn't really apply to the mayoral election at all, fair point.

But your assumptions of "poor understanding of the issues" and "joke candidates" are informed by the fact that you think that if people DID understand the issues they would vote your way.

So you ARE saying "victories by people you dislike".

turnup was up because Big Brother is off, stuffitall.

Try holding an election mid-series.

x-posted wonk

No, that's not true - and given that you don't know me at all I don't think you're in a position to accuse me of that sort of dishonesty, tbh. I'm genuinely a bit distressed by how ignorant large parts of the electorate are about policies. If people were better informed but consistently voted in a way I personally disagreed with, I'd be happier than I am at the moment.

No I don't know you at all -- I'm sorry you're offended. Night.

PR has it's advantages, but I agree with edam about the list system. I don't want the top 100 most maleable politicians as judged by central office to be elected.

Noone seems to have picked up the point I made in the last thread. KL got 50% more votes than he did in either of his two previous mayoral contests.

My SIL voted for Boris because Ken was, "Making us pay extra council tax for the Olympics."

Didn't see much of the last thread, Swedes - was the difference this time that votes against Ken were more concentrated, or was turn out up, or what?

I think politicians fall back on blame the electorate - tinkering with voting methods to the point where we are practically inviting people to commit fraud - instead of actually thinking about why people are pissed off.