General News Thread

[Finnegan]

 

10 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Come on now, poorly composed Facebook memes are a very valid reason.

 

Poorly composed Facebook memes mass produced by Russian bot farms*

 

[AKCJ]

Mad how many "worst PM ever" or "most hated man in Britain" shouts i'm seeing.

[Robo61]

47 minutes ago, DJW1 said:

If PR ever gets introduced (I think Burnham is in favour), it MIGHT boost voter turnout. It is the fairest way of deciding elections. If it was in use in the UK the current government might well be a Lab-LD-Greens coalition

People can´t trot out the line "I´m not voting because they´re all the same" when the choice ranges from the Greens to Reform

I couldn't agree more,  I have voted in every election of any sort since 1979 and not once has my vote made any difference as I live in one of the safest Tory sits there is.  I'd love to see PR but fear there is not time to implement a new form of voting before the next election.  I may though have the opportunity to vote tactically to keep Farage out next time,  so at least may feel my vote counts even if holding my nose.  Every cloud etc.

[Finnegan]

4 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Mad how many "worst PM ever" or "most hated man in Britain" shouts i'm seeing.

 

It's a good example of what Labour are going to have to deal with to win an election, though. It isn't a fair fight but they're going to have to get used to it now and find a solution. 

 

I half joke about Russian bot farms but there are a phenomenal amount of bad actors on social media that are going to be very pro-Reform and very anti-Labour in the run up to the next election, not to mention the fact they've got to contend with every media outlet that Murdoch or his friends own. 

 

A lot of people don't actually follow political news, they just read social media posts and tabloid headlines that flash up on their phones. 

 

They'll just absorb and parrot what they see on their screens and the overall majority of it is designed to either be explicitly or at least covertly pro-Reform. That's just the reality of the political world at current and it's the game Labour need to realise they're in. 

 

[bovril]

11 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

Mad how many "worst PM ever" or "most hated man in Britain" shouts i'm seeing.

Cognitive dissonance. People who have consistently voted for decline over the past 16 years need to convince themselves it was't their fault. 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's a good example of what Labour are going to have to deal with to win an election, though. It isn't a fair fight but they're going to have to get used to it now and find a solution. 

 

I half joke about Russian bot farms but there are a phenomenal amount of bad actors on social media that are going to be very pro-Reform and very anti-Labour in the run up to the next election, not to mention the fact they've got to contend with every media outlet that Murdoch or his friends own. 

 

A lot of people don't actually follow political news, they just read social media posts and tabloid headlines that flash up on their phones. 

 

They'll just absorb and parrot what they see on their screens and the overall majority of it is designed to either be explicitly or at least covertly pro-Reform. That's just the reality of the political world at current and it's the game Labour need to realise they're in. 

 

 

6 minutes ago, bovril said:

Cognitive dissonance. People who have consistently voted for decline over the past 16 years need to convince themselves it was't their fault. 

And therein lies the problem with the human condition and ego. 

 

People don't like being wrong or being pointed out that they're being manipulated. Even when they are and they are. 

 

And that applies across the spectrum of political beliefs. 

[Finnegan]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

And therein lies the problem with the human condition and ego. 

 

People don't like being wrong or being pointed out that they're being manipulated. Even when they are and they are. 

 

And that applies across the spectrum of political beliefs. 

 

Well yeah, there's already a laugh emoji reaction on what I posted above and there's nothing particularly funny about it at all

 

It's objectively proven fact, you can go and watch one of a bunch of credible mainstream documentaries or read any number of peer reviewed studies on Russia's use of social media to promote politicians friendly to them in Nato countries and to try and create division. 

 

But it's easier to dismiss it as a conspiracy theory and silly paranoia than it is to admit you're being duped by the "news" you're reading on social media. 

 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, DJW1 said:

If PR ever gets introduced (I think Burnham is in favour), it MIGHT boost voter turnout. It is the fairest way of deciding elections. If it was in use in the UK the current government might well be a Lab-LD-Greens coalition

People can´t trot out the line "I´m not voting because they´re all the same" when the choice ranges from the Greens to Reform

We had a vote in 2011 via Con/Lib coalition but it failed miserably probably because it was the wrong version

Wiki

Choice Votes %  Yes 6,152,607 32.10%  No 13,013,123 67.90% Valid votes 19,165,730 99.41% Invalid or blank votes 113,292 0.59% Total votes 19,279,022 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 45,684,501 42.2%

 

 

The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method and was the first national referendum to be held across the whole of the United Kingdom in the 21st century. The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by 67.9% of voters on a national turnout of 42%. The failure of the referendum was considered a humiliating setback for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who had acquiesced to the Conservative offer of a referendum on AV rather than proportional representation (PR) as part of the coalition agreement.^[1][2] The referendum was linked to the ongoing decline of his popularity and that of the Liberal Democrats in general.^[3][4]

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

We had a vote in 2011 via Con/Lib coalition but it failed miserably probably because it was the wrong version

Wiki

Choice Votes %  Yes 6,152,607 32.10%  No 13,013,123 67.90% Valid votes 19,165,730 99.41% Invalid or blank votes 113,292 0.59% Total votes 19,279,022 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 45,684,501 42.2%

 

 

The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method and was the first national referendum to be held across the whole of the United Kingdom in the 21st century. The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by 67.9% of voters on a national turnout of 42%. The failure of the referendum was considered a humiliating setback for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who had acquiesced to the Conservative offer of a referendum on AV rather than proportional representation (PR) as part of the coalition agreement.^[1][2] The referendum was linked to the ongoing decline of his popularity and that of the Liberal Democrats in general.^[3][4]

Yeah, it was at the wrong time, and executed in about the worst possible fashion. 

 

I think a vote on PR would stand a much better chance today. 

[Sampson]

25 minutes ago, davieG said:

We had a vote in 2011 via Con/Lib coalition but it failed miserably probably because it was the wrong version

Wiki

Choice Votes %  Yes 6,152,607 32.10%  No 13,013,123 67.90% Valid votes 19,165,730 99.41% Invalid or blank votes 113,292 0.59% Total votes 19,279,022 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 45,684,501 42.2%

 

 

The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method and was the first national referendum to be held across the whole of the United Kingdom in the 21st century. The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by 67.9% of voters on a national turnout of 42%. The failure of the referendum was considered a humiliating setback for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who had acquiesced to the Conservative offer of a referendum on AV rather than proportional representation (PR) as part of the coalition agreement.^[1][2] The referendum was linked to the ongoing decline of his popularity and that of the Liberal Democrats in general.^[3][4]

PR and AV aren't the same thing at all - AV is simply a different way of counting votes, but we'd still have the local constituency model and a party getting 100% of the power on less than 30% of the votes.

 

PR means that the actual amount of votes a party gets across the country represents the actual amount of seats they get - it's not just about how votes are counted, its about the actual percentage of the votes you get representing the actual numberif seats you get.

 

The problem is we still have this weird local MP model that comes from the late 1700s at a time where political parties didn't exist and you just voted for which one of you in your town would go on the 2 week journey from Northern Scotland to London on horseback once a year to represent your town tell them in London what was going on there. Obviously nowadays people have way more access to that and vote for parties for the most part not some independent Bob the Blacksmith down the road who you think would be good at going to London to say theres been a few extra sheep dying from a new disease the past year here in Herefordshire West.

 

Our local constituency FPTP system was never designed as a party or factional system really and when it did, it only worked for 2 parties because factionalism splits votes. Once you're in the 5 or maybe 6 party system (depending on whether Restore are a Change UK style flash in the pan or staythe course) it just creates arbitrary results and isn't particularly democratic nor representative of voters,

 

For the record, both Starmer and Farage were both big open proponents of PR in the past, both on record saying they believe its much more democratic, but of course, as soon as they get close to power they drop it.

Edited 23 June by Sampson

[DJW1]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

We had a vote in 2011 via Con/Lib coalition but it failed miserably probably because it was the wrong version

Wiki

Choice Votes %  Yes 6,152,607 32.10%  No 13,013,123 67.90% Valid votes 19,165,730 99.41% Invalid or blank votes 113,292 0.59% Total votes 19,279,022 100.00% Registered voters/turnout 45,684,501 42.2%

 

 

The referendum concerned whether to replace the present "first-past-the-post" system with the "alternative vote" (AV) method and was the first national referendum to be held across the whole of the United Kingdom in the 21st century. The proposal to introduce AV was rejected by 67.9% of voters on a national turnout of 42%. The failure of the referendum was considered a humiliating setback for Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg, who had acquiesced to the Conservative offer of a referendum on AV rather than proportional representation (PR) as part of the coalition agreement.^[1][2] The referendum was linked to the ongoing decline of his popularity and that of the Liberal Democrats in general.^[3][4]

Thanks for posting that. I´d forgotten about that referendum.

One PR system that is used in many countries, and has been used in the UK, is the D´Hondt system. It´s not 100% proportional, but is fairer than FPTP.  It slightly favours bigger parties and those whose support is concentrated in small regions. For example, a party receiving 40% of the vote in a region would get around 45% of the seats

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

PR and AV aren't the same thing at all - AV is simply a different way of counting votes, but we'd still have the local constituency model and a party getting 100% of the power on less than 30% of the votes.

 

PR means that the actual amount of votes a party gets across the country represents the actual amount of seats they get - it's not just about how votes are counted, its about the actual percentage of the votes you get representing the actual numberif seats you get.

 

The problem is we still have this weird local MP model that comes from the late 1700s at a time where political parties didn't exist and you just voted for which one of you in your town would go on the 2 week journey from Northern Scotland to London on horseback once a year to represent your town tell them in London what was going on there. Obviously nowadays people have way more access to that and vote for parties for the most part not some independent Bob the Blacksmith down the road who you think would be good at going to London to say theres been a few extra sheep dying from a new disease the past year here in Herefordshire West.

 

Our local constituency FPTP system was never designed as a party or factional system really and when it did, it only worked for 2 parties because factionalism splits votes. Once you're in the 5 or maybe 6 party system (depending on whether Restore are a Change UK style flash in the pan or staythe course) it just creates arbitrary results and isn't particularly democratic nor representative of voters,

 

For the record, both Starmer and Farage were both big open proponents of PR in the past, both on record saying they believe its much more democratic, but of course, as soon as they get close to power they drop it.

 

I'm a longstanding PR supporter. In 2000, I went to ask my Labour MP why the Blair Govt wasn't keeping its manifesto promise to hold a referendum on electoral reform. He told me that FPTP delivered strong government.....I wonder if he still thinks so, after Iraq, austerity, Brexit, Boris, Truss, 7 PMs in 10 years etc?  I ended up voting LD as a protest in 2001. 

 

Mind you, I do think we'd have to be careful what PR system we choose, if it ever happens. The national list system is about the most strictly proportional, but comes with the serious downside that a party or individual with 1% of the vote or less can hold a govt to ransom. This isn't just theory. It's happened in Israel. Netanyahu is a nasty piece of work, anyway, but it doesn't help that the survival of his govt (and potentially his avoidance of prison) depends on a tiny minority of ultra-Orthodox extremists.

 

Also, however, ridiculous our system of local MPs might seem, I suspect that the PR campaign would lose a lot of public support if that local link is eliminated - it could even sink the whole campaign.  The only circumstances in which I could imagine it being a good idea to lose the local constituency link for MPs would be if much, much more power was devolved to local and/or regional councils in England, reducing the perceived importance of the Westminster constituency link. That should happen regardless, after 45+ years during which successive governments (mainly the Tories, but Labour haven't been much better) have stripped English local government of power and money. However, it's not a process that could be achieved quickly - it would take years, if not decades.

 

I prefer the idea of Single Transferable Voting (STV) in Multi-Member Constituencies. This would operate a bit like EU elections did latterly. Instead of having 11 MPs elected for 11 individual constituencies in Leicestershire & Rutland, you could have 11 MPs elected for the whole of Leics/Rutland by STV. This wouldn't produce quite as proportional an outcome as the national list system, but a much more proportional one than FPTP - and it would retain a constituency link, albeit a larger constituency. Votes would be transferred between candidates/parties (voting 1-2-3, not "X"). Any party getting close to 10% of the vote would get at least 1 MP, offering constituents more varied representatives - and perhaps MPs closer to their thinking, if not a main party supporter. But second and third choices would also matter, potentially limiting the chances of a party popular with a minority but deeply unpopular with the majority getting many MPs.

 

Other countries use different roughly proportional systems. I believe Germany has a mixed system: some MPs are directly elected for constituencies, others elected from a system of regional lists - but with the proviso that a party will only get any list MPs if it secures at least 5% of the vote.

[davieG]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Instead of having 11 MPs elected for 11 individual constituencies in Leicestershire & Rutland, you could have 11 MPs elected for the whole of Leics/Rutland by STV.

The advantage of this is that you'd have a better chance of getting an MP who matches your voting intentions, I'm assuming that those 11 would be based on votes so you'd get a number of different parties within that 11.

[Alf Bentley]

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

The advantage of this is that you'd have a better chance of getting an MP who matches your voting intentions, I'm assuming that those 11 would be based on votes so you'd get a number of different parties within that 11.

 

Yep. Based on current polling, I'd expect the 11 MPs elected for Leics/Rutland under a hypothetical STV/MMC system to include Lab, Con, LD, Greens and Reform.

[davieG]

Just now, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yep. Based on current polling, I'd expect the 11 MPs elected for Leics/Rutland under a hypothetical STV/MMC system to include Lab, Con, LD, Greens and Reform.

I think that would be a big plus, if you're a far left voter and your MP is Reform it hardly gives you confidence in any sort of action, vice versa of course. 

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Robo61 said:

I couldn't agree more,  I have voted in every election of any sort since 1979 and not once has my vote made any difference as I live in one of the safest Tory sits there is.  I'd love to see PR but fear there is not time to implement a new form of voting before the next election.  I may though have the opportunity to vote tactically to keep Farage out next time,  so at least may feel my vote counts even if holding my nose.  Every cloud etc.

You're going to vote Restore?

[AKCJ]

3 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

Well yeah, there's already a laugh emoji reaction on what I posted above and there's nothing particularly funny about it at all

 

You know that you're dealing with a moron on here when they start responding to you with the laughing reaction to serious topics.

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

It's a good example of what Labour are going to have to deal with to win an election, though. It isn't a fair fight but they're going to have to get used to it now and find a solution. 

 

I half joke about Russian bot farms but there are a phenomenal amount of bad actors on social media that are going to be very pro-Reform and very anti-Labour in the run up to the next election, not to mention the fact they've got to contend with every media outlet that Murdoch or his friends own. 

 

A lot of people don't actually follow political news, they just read social media posts and tabloid headlines that flash up on their phones. 

 

They'll just absorb and parrot what they see on their screens and the overall majority of it is designed to either be explicitly or at least covertly pro-Reform. That's just the reality of the political world at current and it's the game Labour need to realise they're in. 

 

Given the domination of the media by the right wing (going back to time immemorial) it's a miracle Labour have ever won an election.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Given the domination of the media by the right wing (going back to time immemorial) it's a miracle Labour have ever won an election.

Blair was very quick to get Murdoch onside early on, which shows in the (relatively) easier ride he had from a lot of the UK press. 

[Finnegan]

7 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Given the domination of the media by the right wing (going back to time immemorial) it's a miracle Labour have ever won an election.

 

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Blair was very quick to get Murdoch onside early on, which shows in the (relatively) easier ride he had from a lot of the UK press. 

 

Yeah I was about to say, it was the one time Murdoch wanted Labour to win haha. 

 

Certainly didn't hurt. 

 

It's not just a UK problem though, it's global. And logically it makes sense when you think about it. 

 

The people that own news networks are very wealthy on the whole, people that are very wealthy more often want right wing political parties to do well because they're less likely to challenge their wealth. It's not really rocket science. 

 

But it's also why I do think we should have a lot more and a lot better regulation on publications that want to pass themselves off as news. They should be held to way higher standards than they are to inform the electorate, give clear facts, not editorialise, not sensationalise and absolutely not spread disinformation.

 

Especially in the United States where the biggest news network is an absolutely crazy cesspit of unchecked gibberish. 

 

Them being for-profit businesses frantically competing for market share is always going to cause this though isn't it, especially when they're allowed to have advert breaks during peak broadcasting hours. They're desperate for viewers and ratings and sales because they're businesses. So then, that's always going to encourage sensationalism and pulpy, populist "news" even when it isn't particularly helpful to the electorate. 

 

But that's my Mackenzie McHale rant for the day done. 

 

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

 

Yeah I was about to say, it was the one time Murdoch wanted Labour to win haha. 

 

Certainly didn't hurt. 

 

It's not just a UK problem though, it's global. And logically it makes sense when you think about it. 

 

The people that own news networks are very wealthy on the whole, people that are very wealthy more often want right wing political parties to do well because they're less likely to challenge their wealth. It's not really rocket science. 

 

But it's also why I do think we should have a lot more and a lot better regulation on publications that want to pass themselves off as news. They should be held to way higher standards than they are to inform the electorate, give clear facts, not editorialise, not sensationalise and absolutely not spread disinformation.

 

Especially in the United States where the biggest news network is an absolutely crazy cesspit of unchecked gibberish. 

 

Them being for-profit businesses frantically competing for market share is always going to cause this though isn't it, especially when they're allowed to have advert breaks during peak broadcasting hours. They're desperate for viewers and ratings and sales because they're businesses. So then, that's always going to encourage sensationalism and pulpy, populist "news" even when it isn't particularly helpful to the electorate. 

 

But that's my Mackenzie McHale rant for the day done. 

 

Right, and there's been discussion about this on here before. 

 

Truth and fact cannot be the province of the highest bidder, because that's an incredibly easy way to subvert both and simply tell people what they want to hear, with all the bad outcomes that entails. 

[Md9]

This c*** needs to go and live in America if he hates it here so much and wants to be trumps lover . 

[DJW1]

21 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

I see what you did there.

Perhaps Burnham will team up with the Happy Mondays to record.......... 24 Hour Labour Party People 

[Innovindil]

7 minutes ago, Md9 said:

This c*** needs to go and live in America if he hates it here so much and wants to be trumps lover . 

I mean this as a dead serious question so would appreciate an answer. Why repost tweets of people you don't like? 

 

It's the same as all the folk who repost whatever mad ramble trumpet has farted up on his social media. I don't get why people help spread the shit. 

[Md9]

6 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I mean this as a dead serious question so would appreciate an answer. Why repost tweets of people you don't like? 

 

It's the same as all the folk who repost whatever mad ramble trumpet has farted up on his social media. I don't get why people help spread the shit. 

It’s all the shite that pops up on my feed no matter how many times you try blocking it or ignoring it. Plus there isn’t much good news going around to share at the minute either which would obviously be better for everyone. 
begging trump to look at a tweet from 2021 so he can try get some brownie points and wind up all his little fans again