Not being British, I have no dog in this fight directly. But noting that Australian politics (and meta politics) tends to follow British or American trends, I’m actually heartened to see the number of minor parties you have, representing a saner approach to politics.
If I were British, I’d almost certainly vote for the Social Democratic Party under William Cloustone, or alternatively Restore.
Both healthy alternatives to the neoliberal consensus, in my opinion.
I like William Cloustone and have heard him speak in person. I too would consider voting for them if they had the slightest chance of winning, but they don't.
I think, once Restore are properly up and running, that there will be a lot of defections from Reform - councillors and voters. I'm a member of Restore and vote Reform because that's the best on offer at the moment.
True, but it's actually a superb turnout for local elections in Britain, and does indicate a strongly rising interest. And yet again it proves that if you vote, it can make a difference. In fact if only half the population votes, in effect your vote is worth double.
Craig, I enjoyed this and the religion which the state protects is very much the state religion - whatever the made up pretext for its protection. If I may, I’d recommend muting Paul, he is a progressive and destined only to clutter up your comments section with impolite objections, solely on the basis that your world view is anathema to his.
Thanks, but I won't for two reasons: first, my policy is to permit all comments, however inimical to mine, provided they are courteous. Second, he's my oldest friend: I've known him since we were nine. And sometimes old friends find faults in your arguments. Our views may not coincide, but I think I should be able to answer criticism.
In a sense, yes. As you know, before 1832 suffrage was confined to the reasonably well-off. So in fact their votes were worth more. The smaller the electorate, the greater the say each voter has; that's mathematically demonstrable. This is how oligarchies work. In our system, where we have universal suffrage--and in fact, beyond that, as foreign students are allowed to vote, for instance in Scotland--if you choose not to vote, then you abdicate your duty to society, and those who do vote have a proportionately higher importance in choosing whom will be elected. In a representative democracy, that's how it works.
Restore might be popular in certain places, but there are very many unpleasant people amongst its ranks, and they seem bent on destroying Reform and attacking Reform supporters. I don't like Lowe either, so I will not be voting Restore.
Not at all. I don't think you've heard him speaking much. He's angry, as anyone with sense is. Bitter--I don't think so. And if you know of a better British politician, I'd like to know who it is. He's certainly one of the bravest and most honest of recent decades.
I can’t speak for him, obviously. But my guess is that he won’t. He has a visceral hatred of Farage, and in my view it’s justified. Lowe is a man of principle.
Lowe's hatred is so visceral he wouldn’t let Restore cooperate with Reform no matter how bad the consequences for what they have in common? That is principled. And it's Goldsmith and Sked over again.
I expressed myself poorly. Hatred is of course not principled. However, it's possible to hate or despise someone and yet still be a principled person. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the hatred itself is a principle! For example, I utterly despise Starmer. But I would refuse to work with him on principle, setting aside my hatred, because it's obvious to me that he doesn't desire the welfare of the British people. Again, I don't wish to speak for Lowe: that would presumptuous of me. I am merely guessing, but I think it's likely that his feelings are similar.
Not being British, I have no dog in this fight directly. But noting that Australian politics (and meta politics) tends to follow British or American trends, I’m actually heartened to see the number of minor parties you have, representing a saner approach to politics.
If I were British, I’d almost certainly vote for the Social Democratic Party under William Cloustone, or alternatively Restore.
Both healthy alternatives to the neoliberal consensus, in my opinion.
I like William Cloustone and have heard him speak in person. I too would consider voting for them if they had the slightest chance of winning, but they don't.
how did you get the NSDAP only getting 12% of the 1933 vote in Germany?
a quick Google suggests 43%
Quite right! Thanks for pointing out the error. Just faulty memory, I think.
I think, once Restore are properly up and running, that there will be a lot of defections from Reform - councillors and voters. I'm a member of Restore and vote Reform because that's the best on offer at the moment.
I completely agree. That’s my stance too.
Less than 50 pc turnout is hardly democracy at work.
True, but it's actually a superb turnout for local elections in Britain, and does indicate a strongly rising interest. And yet again it proves that if you vote, it can make a difference. In fact if only half the population votes, in effect your vote is worth double.
Craig, I enjoyed this and the religion which the state protects is very much the state religion - whatever the made up pretext for its protection. If I may, I’d recommend muting Paul, he is a progressive and destined only to clutter up your comments section with impolite objections, solely on the basis that your world view is anathema to his.
Thanks, but I won't for two reasons: first, my policy is to permit all comments, however inimical to mine, provided they are courteous. Second, he's my oldest friend: I've known him since we were nine. And sometimes old friends find faults in your arguments. Our views may not coincide, but I think I should be able to answer criticism.
As a great man recently deceased would say "Debate me"
So if only 33 pc turn out your vote is worth triple?
In a sense, yes. As you know, before 1832 suffrage was confined to the reasonably well-off. So in fact their votes were worth more. The smaller the electorate, the greater the say each voter has; that's mathematically demonstrable. This is how oligarchies work. In our system, where we have universal suffrage--and in fact, beyond that, as foreign students are allowed to vote, for instance in Scotland--if you choose not to vote, then you abdicate your duty to society, and those who do vote have a proportionately higher importance in choosing whom will be elected. In a representative democracy, that's how it works.
Restore might be popular in certain places, but there are very many unpleasant people amongst its ranks, and they seem bent on destroying Reform and attacking Reform supporters. I don't like Lowe either, so I will not be voting Restore.
Fair enough. I do like him. Who else do you find unpleasant in their ranks? The young team seem pretty great to me.
I very much get the same impression-
Lowe seems to me an angry, bitter old man.
Not at all. I don't think you've heard him speaking much. He's angry, as anyone with sense is. Bitter--I don't think so. And if you know of a better British politician, I'd like to know who it is. He's certainly one of the bravest and most honest of recent decades.
Would he have to forgive it to co-operate with them?
I can’t speak for him, obviously. But my guess is that he won’t. He has a visceral hatred of Farage, and in my view it’s justified. Lowe is a man of principle.
Lowe's hatred is so visceral he wouldn’t let Restore cooperate with Reform no matter how bad the consequences for what they have in common? That is principled. And it's Goldsmith and Sked over again.
I expressed myself poorly. Hatred is of course not principled. However, it's possible to hate or despise someone and yet still be a principled person. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that the hatred itself is a principle! For example, I utterly despise Starmer. But I would refuse to work with him on principle, setting aside my hatred, because it's obvious to me that he doesn't desire the welfare of the British people. Again, I don't wish to speak for Lowe: that would presumptuous of me. I am merely guessing, but I think it's likely that his feelings are similar.
But of course not foolish.
Let's hope Reform, Restore and Advance come together for all our sakes. Nigel is the kingmaker here as he caused the rift in the first place.
Not going to happen. Nigel, Yusef and Anderson plotted to put Rupert in prison, on totally false charges. Lowe would be a fool to forgive that.