Who else sees the parallels between "nasty right wing GC" slurs and "nasty right wing Brexiter" slurs?

[ConsiderTheLobster]

If you're GC, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're actually GC because you've looked into this deeply and are trying to protect vulnerable people (women, non-conforming children, and trans people).

If you voted Brexit, you know that a vocal majority within certain liberal left circles will denounce you as a right wing bigot. You know that you're sceptical of the EU because it constitutes a corporate-favouring trading block, poses barriers to nationalisation of services such as railways, has deeply racist immigration policies (permitting free movement of predominantly white Europeans whilst restricting the movement of others), keeps people in many non-EU (e.g., African) countries locked into unfavourable trade deals, and reduces the influence of genuine democracy.

If you're GC and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so. If you voted Brexit and you work at a university, in the NHS or in left-leaning media, you're scared to say so.

There are of course some genuine bigots who oppose self ID because they're transphobic. And there are genuine bigots who voted Brexit because they are racist. In each case, these are the narratives peddled by certain media about, respectively, all GCs, and all Brexit-supporters.

So - how many of us GCs still berate the nasty fascist Brexiters?

No, sorry but that one's a no brainer. Again like Labour and Tories, it comes down to what you're comparing it to. There are many forms of PR and obiously they're not all perfect, but our current system is an anti-democratic travesty. Leading parties usually need somewhere between 30-40% of the vote to have a "majority", and three times since world war 2 the party with the most votes has actually come second in terms of seats and the party that came second has governed instead! MOST of the country goes to the polls each election (or doesn't bother) knowing that their vote cannot possibly make any difference, because they're in a safe constituency one way or other, and each election is then decided by the same small minority of swing seats.

I don't know what you mean about outcomes but it's been extensively studied and found that countries with FPTP systems tend to return governments significantly to the right on most issues to the average opinion of the population.

This is what makes me laugh when people complain about the EU being undemocratic. At least they have actual real elections in which peoples' votes actually count.

You know, there are a few things in life that are no-brainers. But when you use that phrase over something like this, what it generally means is that you are missing something.

I don't really think that whether the governments are more often to the right, or to the left, is much of a measure of how effective a political system is. I'd tend to look at things like stability of the system, and whether it tends to bring out more extreme elements in the population, on either side, and give them political credibility.

But then, I come from a different standpoint that doesn't want to see party affiliations on ballots at all, which used to be the case. I think an important part of the political system is that we are, fundamentally, not voting for a party, but a person, and you can't return 53% of one person, and 20% of another. This person also, in the end, is elected by the constituents, not by a party, and represents first the good of constituency and the country, and only a party platform secondly - there should be a clear hierarchy there, and it has become reversed, much to the detriment of politics generally.

A proportional representation system OTOH would tend to emphasise and harden that error, and further abstract voting from people and their concrete pursuit of a good life to various ideological positions.

Another way to thin about this is a little more historically. Conservatives in the past were a party that represented a desire for a secure social order, very much based on land and sense of place. Stable communities and economies. And while it was rightly criticised as effectively favouring the people at the top of the economic hierarchy, it's important to understand that as an ideal, it say all the various groups working together interdependently and for mutual benefit. The tendency for it to resist social change comes out of that respect for stability, but if course it has occurred over time and what was once innovative could come to be part of the status quo.

This was opposed by liberalism which favoured financial deregulation and what we'd now see as the beginnings of globalism. It's international rather than local and industry rather than agriculture.

The socialist left arose in response to the liberals more than the conservatives, because it largely came out of the industrial revolution. It had some elements of change, and was related to industry, but it shared a lot of similarities to conservatism, like attachment to local community and an appreciation for stability. In a way you could see it as a reformed, industrialised version of the same idea, where workers were given institutions and regulations that would protect them from exploitation from above.

This is why, while there was often a lot of disharmony between leftists and conservatives, they had in common a hatred for liberals.

Fast forward today, and what you have is a conservative party that has lost most of its ties to that old conservative worldview - it's economically very liberal and socially pretty liberal. And the Labour party is the opposite - not leftist, but socially very liberal, and economically pretty liberal.

So for people whose desire would be for either traditional conservatism or traditional leftism, really neither party fits well, and either might be chosen based on a host of pragmatic factors that make it seem marginally preferable at the moment.

Interesting posts, @ChestnutStuffing. I've been enjoying reading them.

I don't really think that whether the governments are more often to the right, or to the left, is much of a measure of how effective a political system is.

I didn't say "to the right", I said "to the right of the average opinion of the population, whereas PR is more likely to form governments that align more closely with the opinions of the population.

But if you don't think it's necessary or even desirable for ostensibly democratic governments to reflect the will of the people they govern, then we're clearly working from very different definitions of democracy.

But then, I come from a different standpoint that doesn't want to see party affiliations on ballots at all, which used to be the case. I think an important part of the political system is that we are, fundamentally, not voting for a party, but a person, and you can't return 53% of one person, and 20% of another. This person also, in the end, is elected by the constituents, not by a party, and represents first the good of constituency and the country, and only a party platform secondly - there should be a clear hierarchy there, and it has become reversed, much to the detriment of politics generally.

A proportional representation system OTOH would tend to emphasise and harden that error, and further abstract voting from people and their concrete pursuit of a good life to various ideological positions.

Leaving aside the most obvious problem with this - that what you want is obviously never going to happen, that last part is simply untrue.

You can have a PR system that maintains the individual-constituency link. There are many in operation all over the world (I don't know but they could be the majority of PR systems). For (just one) example, you can vote for party candidates for each consistuency exactly as we do now, who then go on to make up the majority of parliament, but are topped up by number of non-constituency MPs calculated on the basis of the total number of votes for each party.

Not liking the party system is not a reason for favouring a poor, undemocratic version of it that doesn't deliver the government most people want, over a better version that does.

@ConsiderTheLobster

Interesting posts, *@ChestnutStuffing*. I've been enjoying reading them.

Indeed, I've found it one of the best set of arguments for Brexit that I've seen, and very challenging (in a good way).

But I get edgy when people start saying how great things were in the good old days when the peasants knew their place and the fine, generous-hearted aristocracy could be relied upon to give them half a day off on Sundays and a slice of suet pudding at Christmas. Say what you like about how the left deals with capitalism (and again, I'd query the relevance of this coming precisely at a time when Labour DID turn back to the left, produced their most socialist program for a generation - and were rejected for it), but feudalism is not the answer.

I've only encountered this line of reasoning once before and it was from a solid champagne socialist who decided she needed more expensive champagne, and wanted to justify campaining for a Tory.

But no one has said anything like that.

What is true though, I think, is that most social systems have their ideals, and how they play out in practice. Or to put it another way, there are always bad, selfish people, and they will use any social system you have to advantage themselves. There are a few ways to guard against this but a really important one is to try and create checks and balances within institutions. When these fail, or aren't in place, people take advantage.

But it is an interesting point re feudalism is that as concieved, each layer of society was necessary, and could demand certain rights and services from the others. And there was a moral and often legal obligation to give those, for example land rights. The power of the highest levels was justified in terms of giving that kind of service.

On the other hand, in capitalism, the highest levels (who are just as entrenched as those in feudalism) have very little obligation. Greed is good.

Great. I'll grab my horse and cart then and go and see if Jacob Rees-Mogg will throw me a crust of bread for tilling his field. Yay the workers!

Fine words, but beneath them the analysis still depends on denial and avoidance. What possible reason is there to believe that the Tories will use Brexit to reinvigorate localism against the power of global capital when we know that they instituted it precisely for the power of global capital, and when their leading lights behind it are the 1% on the make for tax avoidance? Because "some conservative thinkers" are thinking about that? OK. What possible logic is there to the working class rejecting Labour for being too liberal and not leftist, precisely at the point where they have become more leftist than at any time in recent history. (Note I'm not challenging the WC right to do that, just your analysis of the reason). What possible reason is there for the working class to reject internationalism in favour of a nostalgic localism under Tory feudal hegemony, when feudalism did nothing for them but grind them into the dust? Socialism has always been internationalist in aspiration, and that's needed more than ever now, not less, because the power of international capital demands an international response. Not a cozy delusion that we are somehow going to challenge it by tolerating class based exploitation as long as it's got "made in Britain" printed on the bottom.

This is just Tories doing what Tories do, as I said on page 1: convincing the people at the bottom that the enemy they need to look out for is the people in the middle, to divert their attention from the people at the top. Divide and conquer. The fine words have an illustrious heritage.

It took a while to get here because there was the pretence that it had something to do with the interests of the working class. I suppose if your interest is sacrificing statutory pay and condition protection, collective bargaining, a welfare state and functioning public health and education services, so you can throw everything at the mercy of your LOCAL exploiter, then have at it.

And finally (because I do realise I’ve gone on a bit) it’s also completely untrue what you said earlier about there being nothing on the left exploring empowerment of local communities. Ever heard of the Preston model? It’s been around for about a decade and actually put into practice, unlike theories about what unnamed Conservatives might do to go against the entire directors of travel of their party.
Meanwhile, the Tories have slashed local council funding by 40% since 2010, with devastating effects upon social care (and also youth centre provision and other services), and a knock on effect on the NHS. Cuts that there is a whole section on the subject in Labour’s 2019 manifesto, among other things.

You seem very stuck on the idea that they were more leftist than ever. I'm not sure after all this discussion how you can't see that others might not see it from that perspective - even if you take it as true it's wholly inadequate as they backed away repeatedly from the one discussion that they wanted to have.

And then, you can't make it clear you despise people and think they are stupid, and have them vote for you.

As for carts and horses, if you are going to be reactionary when considering other political and economic systems, and assume that because they existed some time ago they must be worse in every way than what we have now, you are just being reactionary. There were some very interesting features in medieval economic thought that included some rights we don't give people today (particularly with reference to right to work the land), ethical lines drawn around the most profoundly exploitative economic activities (like usury) which are today accepted as not only legal but are the very heart of capitalism, and clear responsibility given to employers to be responsible for the welfare of their employees and have the public good as an important purpose of their economic activity. These are all ideas which show us that things can be done in a truly different way and suggest new avenues for thinking through todays problems. Temporal bias really doesn't justify sneering about it.

[CayrolBaaaskin:] "the EU is democratic. Please provide any evidence of the contrary."

An example I have given is the European Constitution. I believe the EU lost a couple of national referendums over it. What did they do? They just went ahead anyway, doing 95% of the stuff in a technically different way by amending previous treaties. But it's the same political changes they pushed forward that had just been rejected by the people.

As for a PR voting system, it's OK, but I think you would increase democracy more if you just put multiple issues at a time directly to the people. Certainly with many ethical issues they are very easy to settle with referendums. E.g. "Do you support the death penalty being available for murder, yes or no?" (Assuming you trust the people to have a say, which some people don't.)

To me saying the EU is democratic is like saying the UK is democratic if we had PR to vote for the HOL while the HOCs are appointed.

@PutYourBackIntoit

To me saying the EU is democratic is like saying the UK is democratic if we had PR to vote for the HOL while the HOCs are appointed.

Whereas in reality, we don't even have PR to vote for the HOC, while the HOL is appointed.

As for a PR voting system, it's OK, but I think you would increase democracy more if you just put multiple issues at a time directly to the people. Certainly with many ethical issues they are very easy to settle with referendums. E.g. "Do you support the death penalty being available for murder, yes or no?" (Assuming you trust the people to have a say, which some people don't.)

Oh God no, please.

If there's one thing Brexit has taught us, it's that democracy is only as good as access to information, and the necessary knowledge and ability to appraise that information. In your example, for example, there are all kinds of misinformation about the death penalty (how effective it is as a deterrent, for example) that people could make a bad judgment with.

I think representative democracy is probably as good as anything as a principle: the people vote for the general values and direction of travel they want from the government, and the government and civil service do the detailed work in applying that to various areas of technical specialism. It's the only way to deal with the fact that in a modern, post-industrial society, the detailed technicalities of specific fields require too much specialist knowledge for everybody to be able appraise them well.

The problem is just that we don't actually have representative democracy.

Whereas in reality, we don't even have PR to vote for the HOC, while the HOL is appointed.

Quite, but the point is we have a system (I agree not ideal and I would prefer PR) for electing the HOC who have the power to make change, and the appointed HOL is more of a processing chamber.

Contrast this with the EU where the elected MEPs have arguable less powers than the HOL, and the Commisioners who can actually instigate change are appointed.

I never ever want another referendum though, on anything!!

The top sentence is a bold fail.

Hope you're all having decent Friday nights. I had my jab today (CEV) and I feel like partying!! Instead I've got a bit of a shiver so am sitting in bed playing Amoung Us with my son.

Just stumbled on this article (link below) in Nature from the end of last year.
Not directly what anyone's been debating, but made me think of this thread.

"EU member states are outsourcing environmental damage to other countries, while taking the credit for green policies at home."

"The EU imports US$500 million worth of beef annually from Brazil, most of which is supplied by companies that source meat from newly deforested areas. EU agricultural imports are linked to more than one-third of all deforestation embodied in the global crop trade since 1990."

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02991-1

@PutYourBackIntoit, congrats on your jab! May the shivers pass quickly...

[FifteenToes:]
"Oh God no, please.

If there's one thing Brexit has taught us, it's that democracy is only as good as access to information, and the necessary knowledge and ability to appraise that information. In your example, for example, there are all kinds of misinformation about the death penalty (how effective it is as a deterrent, for example) that people could make a bad judgment with."

Firstly, I suspect that if people could vote directly on certain general economic matters, we could see things swing more towards the left-wing side.

But anyway, with the death penalty example, yes, people could be misinformed on something like the deterrence effect; but that's likely also going to be the case if you have 600 politicians voting on the matter.

The average politician doesn't have the time/interest to personally research (what may be) conflicting studies, and weigh up all the different criticisms and arguments over the evidence.

They also, like the public, may well not even be primarily concerned with that. It's likely that many people would just vote on how they feel about it as a straight moral question: is it an appropriate and fair punishment to use for some crimes, regardless of whether society benefits from reduced crime. And politicians are no more experts on that kind of issue than the general public. No one can really be expert on that question in the sense that they have a special claim to likely having the correct answer. Or, in so far as you can have expertise in that area of philosophy / ethics / punishment, (i.e. having read plenty of material from different sides and being competent with assessing stuff), again, politicians probably don't even have that kind of limited expertise.

I'm thinking it's just going to come down to gut instinct on the moral question of whether it's OK for the state to kill criminals, exactly the same as if the general public was deciding the matter.

If you're against referendums, let me ask you a question... how would we switch to a PR voting system? I guess people aren't allowed a direct say over that question? They could be misinformed on the advantages/disadvantages of the different systems. So you don't want the public deciding this stuff. It's best left to the real experts in parliament.

However, if it's just left up to politicians to decide, they may be happy enough with the system we now use for selfish reasons. Why risk giving more power to smaller parties and letting them grow even bigger in the future as a result? Would the main parties want to vote for that when it could harm their own status?

Personally, I think we should trust the people (even though imperfect in their knowledge) with the question of whether they want a PR voting system or not.

The average politician doesn't have the time/interest to personally research (what may be) conflicting studies, and weigh up all the different criticisms and arguments over the evidence.

Actually, exactly that is supposed to be a major part of an MP's job spec - to scrutinise proposed legislation in light of the best information available and where appropriate liase with expert advice and specialist agencies in doing so, so that decisions are not made purely on the basis of kneejerk reaction or political expediency. That's why the government was able to handle the coronavirus crisis so well, by listening to medical and epidemiological experts. Oh, hang on . . .

If you're against referendums, let me ask you a question... how would we switch to a PR voting system? I guess people aren't allowed a direct say over that question? They could be misinformed on the advantages/disadvantages of the different systems. So you don't want the public deciding this stuff. It's best left to the real experts in parliament.

I didn't say I was against referendums per se, and actually things like Brexit (and PR) ARE probably the right application of them, because they come down to how we conceive of government working in the first place, what it actually means to be governed, rather than what the government does about specific issues. But if that's going to work then people need to have better critical thinking faculties than they do, and we need to do something about the obscene domination of what passes for news in this country by Tory propaganda.

Personally, I think we should trust the people (even though imperfect in their knowledge) with the question of whether they want a PR voting system or not.

In principle I think I agree, but there's a difficult question of political philosophy lurking in this. How much of the way people treat each other, or the way he state treats certain individuals, can be justified by a simple majority vote?

If we had a referendum on withdrawing the vote from anyone who doesn't own property, and it passed, would that make it OK?

What about a referendum raising the electoral desposit required to stand as a candidate from £500 to £1m, and the threshold for it to be refunded to 10% of the vote?

Now if you consider the fact that FPTP is fundamentally undemocratic - in that the vast majority of people's votes make no difference to anything and there is nothing they can do, within the system, to influence what government we have - then how would a referendum result confirming the status quo be any more justifiable than those examples? Isn't that just fascism - using support from one part of the population to deny the chance of representation to the rest?

I wonder if there is any such thing as a democratic voting system. Look at PR in other countries. After the vote, the majority then has to negotiate and give away jobs, ideals to other parties in order to govern. Those ideas on the manifesto are ditched as the negotiations go on. There's no point in saying it would be a bit better democratically, if there is just a mish mash of policies, with the minor parties putting all their efforts into the departments they won and making difficulties for other departments.

First past the post isn't great and I live in a very safe seat and (used to) vote the opposite to my constituency. I have always taken comfort in the fact that my vote shows how many in the country voted my way and I am a fervent believer in democracy, even if it is fundamentally flawed. We have greater input into the way government works than we ever had because technology has made it easier (ok so those without the means is an issue), we are invited to submit to government consultations, our opinions are regularly sought by surveys and political aids regularly look at MN. Democracy isn't just about the vote

I'm into major waffle, I'll start the car .............

in that the vast majority of people's votes make no difference to anything and there is nothing they can do, within the system, to influence what government we have

If that’s the case then how do constituencies ever change MPs? For example in the last election there were seats which had been Labour for decades and became Tory.

[FifteenToes:] I didn't say I was against referendums per se, and actually things like Brexit (and PR) ARE probably the right application of them, because they come down to how we conceive of government working in the first place, what it actually means to be governed, rather than what the government does about specific issues.

Then why wouldn't that include a referendum on whether there is regular use of referendums on specific issues? After all, that's a key question about the nature of government, as fundamental as a PR voting system would be.

You might personally vote, "No"; and perhaps the majority would agree with you, but if it went the other way...

Now if you consider the fact that FPTP is fundamentally undemocratic - in that the vast majority of people's votes make no difference to anything and there is nothing they can do, within the system, to influence what government we have - then how would a referendum result confirming the status quo be any more justifiable than those examples? Isn't that just fascism - using support from one part of the population to deny the chance of representation to the rest?

I don't really accept the assumption of your question here, as I don't believe that FPTP is anything like as bad as you suggest. Surely people can still influence what government we have, and governments do change. OK, it's very much a case of get sick of party A and so party B gets a turn, and then the other way around, but the population's voting pattern makes it all happen. Political parties still have to be somewhat responsive to the wishes of the electorate.

Also a referendum on voting systems just doesn't appear to me to be based around one section of the population exploiting or dominating another section. When we actually got a vote on this issue, between two voting systems, people rejected the change simply because there wasn't the appetite for it and it wasn't an impressive alternative option. Stupid Liberal Democrats sold out and should really have insisted on a referendum on the PR system that they actually wanted.

Now maybe a Conservative Party or Labour Party loyalist could have selfish motivations to uphold the system as it now exists, (as it helps those two political groups keep power), but that kind of assumes that all of the Tory voters and the Labour voters really want that. And actually, often enough, they may think PR is a fairer system and not give a fuck about the main parties keeping power.

Nevertheless I will admit that in theory voters could be corrupted by wanting to maintain power for the big two, in exactly the same way as would likely happen if you put the question to parliament.

What can I say? Democracy isn't perfect.