RugbyRebels

I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Mellsblue wrote:We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

I am selfish like that. I’d like to think the millions in tax I’d paid might have helped somebody out though

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Nah, that’s just Stom

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

Spin doctoring predated Trumps rise by about 20 years, ditto social media by about 15. Trump is /was the shittiest of lightning rods.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

Which might be, dare we hope, a lesson politicians will pay a little attention to?

(NB I don't think this applies in America. I think Trump can lie with total impunity.)

Banquo wrote:

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

I am selfish like that. I’d like to think the millions in tax I’d paid might have helped somebody out though

Bah, who wants tax. We should all just get free ice cream Sundaes.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Stom wrote:I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Nah, that’s just Stom

Did you know Stom means dumb in Dutch?

Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

Stom wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Nah, that’s just Stom

Did you know Stom means dumb in Dutch?

Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

yeah but you were originally stomulamos or summat.
On the second point, its a point of view for sure.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

Stom wrote:Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Which Tyler wrote:

Puja wrote:Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

How do parties pick their candidates though? Obviously parties do it differently with different level of member participation but now so many candidates for both parties are parachuted in by central party HQ regardless of what local people want. That makes the local connection almost redundant. Plus the key criteria today seems to be about looking good on tv and less about actual competence.

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

Stom wrote:Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); fix the media by limiting shareholdings to prevent majority control of news corporations; and clamp down (or even ban outright) political advertising on social media.

Then we might just begin to get decent politics, from which some sanity might flow into everything else, including corporate regulation.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

Stom wrote:Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: 'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.


It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

and who wants to tell the public taxes are going up to pay for it?

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

and who wants to tell the public taxes are going up to pay for it?

I don't actually think political funding needs fixing, to a large extent, but I do think lobbying needs to be changed quite substantially.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: 'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.


It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

In the Netherlands the parties get a state subsidy based on the number of seats in the parliament. Total subsidy across all parties is 17 million. For the party to qualify they must have at least 1000 members and all membership contributions need to be minium 12 euro pp.

The subsidy comprises 4 parts:
1) General subsidy for the party itself
2) for the political science institute of the party
3) for the youth organisation of the party
4) for foreign activities of the party

For 2-4 there are stipulations regarding its use.

Regarding donations etc, donations over 4.5k must be made public. Loans above 25k also. No donations from non EU.

Banquo wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: 'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.


It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

Sure, it would need to be formula-based. Some combination of matching membership fees/donations and a certain amount per vote gained in previous elections (new parties might need a boosted amount based on fees/donations since they wouldn't have had a previous election).

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: ....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

and who wants to tell the public taxes are going up to pay for it?

I don't actually think political funding needs fixing, to a large extent, but I do think lobbying needs to be changed quite substantially.

Yes, good point. Ban lobbying or regulate it the way Sauron would regulate the Hobbits.

To be fair to Starmer he is trying to limit donations from the unions.

Mellsblue wrote:To be fair to Starmer he is trying to limit donations from the unions.

What's next? Will he rename the party?? Ludicrous man.

Mellsblue wrote:To be fair to Starmer he is trying to limit donations from the unions.

Puja

I, for one, can not fathom even one scenario in which that decision and it’s effects could possibly be abused by any government.

Which Tyler wrote:

[Lawyers] should refrain from dismissing policies as unlawful and instead give a percentage chance that they may be challenged.