Marine.

[ATTACK_HAMSTER]

Slight hyperbole I'll admit, Mrs May / the Tories aren't anywhere near as racist . . . . yet.
A lot of parallels in terms of broader policy goals however, especially in relation to the brand Brexit we now appear to be heading for.
Ok, not Nick Griffin. . . . too far, lets say Nigel Farage then. I could easily prepare a game of "Guess who said it" between Farage and May, indeed Mr Farage himself appears to have noticed it.

That i can agree with

Thankfully UKIP will soon be a distant memory according to the local election results.

[Ketraar]

Fun fact:
Marine just LOST the vote in France by winning 33.9% of the vote (22.4% of the eligible vote). The winner, Mr Macron (who won twice as many votes as Le Pen) will likely NOT have an absolute majority when he forms a government.

France has a unique (odd?) system for legislative elections, imposed by the genius De Gaulle (sarcasm) that consist of 2 election cycles, similar to the presidential election. There a Prime-Minister is proposed by the new elected President, which is why I said the the main task for Macron now is to consolidate the movement into something similar to a party. There seems to be already a hint to that with the change of name to include the words "republican", which is a clear move to embrace some of Fillion's voters.

Also French voters tend to separate elections and are keen to vote for a "face" on presidential, whereas they are more inclined to vote political party in legislative elections. They also have less affiliation to colours and are notorious for changing their vote to whomever has the policy they want, which could be one major plus for populist demagogues like Le Pen.

In any case its nowhere near settled and people that like France's slogans still need to watch out and work hard to connect with the voters in a real fashion if any power is to be given to the far right (atm projected 20-25 seats in parliament).

MFG

Ketraar

[Bishop149]

Yeah, I'm aware of the differences with the UK system.

A presidential system with separate elections for the executive and legislative branches isn't such a bad idea. The two after all have different roles and I don't have a huge problem with electorate reflecting this.
I've always thought one of (many) flaws in the UK government is that those two branches are effectively one and the same. In theory there is some separation however in practice the political parties / establishment has structured themselves in such a way as to eliminated it.

As a side note I've been musing about why the much repeated lie (during the referendum campaign and persisting afterwards) of "EU politicians / officials are unelected/unaccountable!" gains such traction with the UK electorate.
I think it comes down to our very odd unrepresentative electoral system. Most voters in this country are used to voting for a party that wins ALL of the power about 50% of the time. Leading to periodic feelings of "Yep the guy I voted for is definitely in charge!"

In more representative systems (such as those that run the EU) this rarely happens, it's more likely that the guy you voted for has only won some of the power and is likely having to make very visible compromises with their opposition. Now when you are only a moderate sized cog in a large machine the chance that guys the British public voted for wielding any significant influence single handed is of course non-existent.
Hence the cry of "Uggg its all pointless and unrepresentative!"
In fact its much MORE representative, unfortunately the way that manifests itself is that the British voter sees their will being thwarted by the representation of others (lots of others that is, as opposed to just the ONE opposition party).
And if you think that's bad Mr Tory/Labour voter you should see what its like for those in the British system that don't want to vote for either of the those two parties.

The same lie doesn't work on many EU citizens because they are quite used systems based around to governing collations.

Edit: Actually I'd go further, this is probably also the reason Britain was such a bloody awful partner in the European Union, whom I'm sure many of the other states won't be sorry to see bugger off. British politicians and by extension the British electorate (likely chicken and egg here) simply don't know how to compromise with their opponents. It's a concept alien to our politics.

[Ketraar]

A presidential system with separate elections for the executive and legislative branches isn't such a bad idea. The two after all have different roles and I don't have a huge problem with electorate reflecting this.

Just to be clear, what I meant was that the legislative election in France is done in 2 rounds, similar to the Presidential elections, where the most voted parties in round one go again in round 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_le ... tion,_2017

Hence the cry of "Uggg its all pointless and unrepresentative!"
In fact its much MORE representative, unfortunately the way that manifests itself is that the British voter sees their will being thwarted by the representation of others (lots of others that is, as opposed to just the ONE opposition party).

This is not exclusive to UK tbh, its a more common "disease" than I would like it to be. This is directly tied with people's disconnect and rather lazy way to address politics and society in general. In the sense that for things to change people have to DO something about it, read stuff and keep informed about things around them, but that takes too much effort and fits greatly with Trevor Noah's segment of "Ain't No One Got Time For That".

MFG

Ketraar

[CBJ]

This is directly tied with people's disconnect and rather lazy way to address politics and society in general. In the sense that for things to change people have to DO something about it, read stuff and keep informed about things around them, but that takes too much effort and fits greatly with Trevor Noah's segment of "Ain't No One Got Time For That".

To be fair, it's not really surprising that people are "lazy" about this. The toxic combination of dishonest, out-of-touch politicians, relentlessly negative and misleading campaigning, a partisan and sensationalist media, and a voting system that means that many people's vote is no more than a token exercise, it's really hard to maintain any kind of enthusiasm for the democratic process.

[Ketraar]

To be fair, it's not really surprising that people are "lazy" about this. The toxic combination of dishonest, out-of-touch politicians, relentlessly negative and misleading campaigning, a partisan and sensationalist media, and a voting system that means that many people's vote is no more than a token exercise, it's really hard to maintain any kind of enthusiasm for the democratic process.

Sure, but expecting anyone else then ourselves to change that is unrealistic.

MFG

Ketraar

[CBJ]

But that's the point. That toxic combination reinforces the idea that people can't change things, so they don't bother trying. And sadly, thanks in part to the last element, they are not entirely wrong.

[greypanther]

But that's the point. That toxic combination reinforces the idea that people can't change things, so they don't bother trying. And sadly, thanks in part to the last element, they are not entirely wrong.

This applies to many other things too, not just politics, the thread I started about plastics is a case in point, so many I have spoken to, just think that nothing they do will make any difference, so do not bother even trying and will not do so, unless told to do so by the government. People need to take responsibility for themselves and their lives!

Back on subject, the thing that annoys me regarding the French presidential election, is the press and the way they have imposed an agenda on the French people. Macron is just about a part of the establishment as you can get, yet they claim he is an outsider, and a relative newcomer to politics. For crying out loud, he was an advisor to Hollande until a short while ago as well as Finance minister!

Apathy wins always it seems.

[Ketraar]

I diasgree. As you may recall I am part of several groups/associations of various "talents", one such association is of cultural nature and we promote many events over the year every year. In the month of April, which is the month of "birth" of this institution, we have 4 events, one each weekend, excluding Easter weekend. One is pure theater, one is related to a journal we produce every two months and try to gather people for and to celebrate it. One event is focussed on music and the last, but not least has a science/social focus, where we organize debates, talks and expositions around topics that are relevant. With speakers specialized and all that.

Having done all this Tarantinoesque exposition I can assure you that getting people to attend is a chore you cant believe. People will find all sorts of excuses as to why their life was busy to not attend and get informed or inform others.

Another example is election night on local elections, the people that voted the winning list gather in the hundreds celebrating victory and congratulate themselves on this achievement they probably had no hand in shaping, since people dont turn up to local meetings where the list of candidates is created. After the celebratory party of the election night, people wont be seen anywhere near the town hall unless some prominent chap is cutting a ribbon and the chance to appear on camera is high.

Yes I understand that things politics is boring and a chore, but doing nothing has never helped bring any change. So sorry if I'm rather unforgiving of the people that stay at home, complain but then find no time whatsoever to contribute in the slightest to shape/change things. As I said many times, its OK if people dont want to get involved, but then dont complain others defined stuff the way THEY wanted it.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: All our events, including the journal, are free.

[greypanther]

I am sorry Ketraar, but what are you disagreeing with?

[pjknibbs]

And sadly, thanks in part to the last element, they are not entirely wrong.

In the UK at least, a large proportion of the population are effectively disenfranchised because they have the temerity to live in non-marginal seats and don't vote for the incumbent party. The constituency I live in has been safely Labour since 1945, and even with Corbyn in charge I don't expect that to change. I go to the polls every General Election knowing that my vote for a non-Labour MP will have no effect whatsoever on the result, but I do it anyway because to do otherwise is to admit you've been beaten by the system.

[Ketraar]

I am sorry Ketraar, but what are you disagreeing with?

Sorry was answering to CBJ's post. You just posted quicker.

MFG

Ketraar

[CBJ]

In the UK at least, a large proportion of the population are effectively disenfranchised because they have the temerity to live in non-marginal seats and don't vote for the incumbent party. The constituency I live in has been safely Labour since 1945, and even with Corbyn in charge I don't expect that to change. I go to the polls every General Election knowing that my vote for a non-Labour MP will have no effect whatsoever on the result, but I do it anyway because to do otherwise is to admit you've been beaten by the system.

Exactly. I too vote every time, even in local elections, despite there being very little point in doing so. I subscribe firmly to the principle of "if you don't vote then you don't have the right to complain about the people that get into power". The problem is that in all respects other than that principle, voting in a non-marginal seat is an exercise in futility.

Another example is election night on local elections, the people that voted the winning list gather in the hundreds celebrating victory and congratulate themselves on this achievement they probably had no hand in shaping, since people dont turn up to local meetings where the list of candidates is created. After the celebratory party of the election night, people wont be seen anywhere near the town hall unless some prominent chap is cutting a ribbon and the chance to appear on camera is high.

Yes I understand that things politics is boring and a chore, but doing nothing has never helped bring any change. So sorry if I'm rather unforgiving of the people that stay at home, complain but then find no time whatsoever to contribute in the slightest to shape/change things. As I said many times, its OK if people dont want to get involved, but then dont complain others defined stuff the way THEY wanted it.

As per my reply to pjknibbs, I am with you in being unforgiving towards those who don't vote at all but, as he explained, for many people, voting does not actually change anything. Both where he lives and where I live, mobilising more people to vote in local elections wouldn't change anything; it would just mean a larger turnout with the same result, as the results seem to be pretty much representative despite the relatively low numbers.

If you're suggesting that people should be more active in trying to persuade people to change their vote, then I'd have thought you'd have realised from all your years on this forum that talking politics at people very rarely changes their mind. There are several fundamental problems with the democratic model that I don't have time to go into, but in essence what politicians end up doing is just telling people whatever they want to hear in order to try and persuade those people to vote for them. Hence, in part, the "race to the bottom" that ends up with the populist movements we've been seeing getting some traction lately.

[Ketraar]

Yes I'm aware your first-to-the-pole system is a bit odd and frankly rather undemocratic. But that was not even what I was trying to say, even though voting is the minimum people should do regardless of odds.

I also dont really care to change peoples minds, sure I can debate an idea/issue and maybe we both grow due to it, thats great, but for most part I'd like for people ta HAVE an opinion, one THEY made based on real information, based some care and diverse sources. Much more important than the actual casting of vote is to be engaged in society, in whatever fashion people feel they can.

At least at local level people also need to be close to political parties, go to their meetings where candidates are "shaped" and try to influence that, this has the biggest impact in the long run, but it involves quite some time and I can see that most people have "better things to do".

Also remember that small changes are changes too, and often just "applying" change to 1 person, can eventually change the world. Butterfly effect and all that.

MFG

Ketraar

[Bishop149]

But that's the point. That toxic combination reinforces the idea that people can't change things, so they don't bother trying. And sadly, thanks in part to the last element, they are not entirely wrong.

Indeed, I was watching a piece on the news this morning interviewing many people below the poverty line, mostly working people on an awful wage forced to make regular use of food banks to feed their kids etc.
People that have been royally and repeatedly kicked in the balls by this and previous governments basically.

You'd think they'd be itching to stick it to the bastards responsible for their trouble wouldn't you?
Nope about 80% of them when asked said they weren't going to vote. Most common reasons "Politicians don't listen anyway", "Politics is none of my business / beyond my station".
I nearly screamed at the TV, individually these peoples votes are worthless but as a group they could be extremely significant.

[CBJ]

At least at local level people also need to be close to political parties, go to their meetings where candidates are "shaped" and try to influence that, this has the biggest impact in the long run...

That's how it's supposed to work, but it doesn't bear much relationship to how it really works in practice.

In practice your chosen local candidate has two choices: stick to a set of principles and get votes from those who agree with those principles (and not get voted in unless those principles happen to appeal to the largest number of people in your area) or say what people want to hear (and get voted in if they are the best at selling themselves). If you, as a local activist, choose to try and persuade them to do the former, you are often actually reducing their chances of getting elected!

Then of course if they do get elected, they have the option of continuing to stick to their set of principles (in which case they probably won't get far up the party hierarchy and make it into a position of responsibility, even if their party gets into power) or toeing the party line, even if the party line drifts away from those principles in order to chase votes (a better chance of getting into some position with influence, but they just become another one of those lying politicians that changes their tune as soon as they get elected).

Great, isn't it?

[Ketraar]

I think you are being to pessimistic. I can only speak for my experience and even if small, I and some people I know have been able to introduce change in both social and political landscape. In 2005 I participated in the creation of a "alternative" list and we managed to elect 1 person for a county equivalent house of representatives and 2 people in towns/villages in the same county. This year we are expected to elect 3 in county and 1 the county hall (which is a big deal) and several in various towns/villages.

Yes it took 12 years and its freaking hard work and but imagine if we had hundreds of people collaborating instead of the on and off 20-30. So again, sorry, I cant agree on this doomsday scenario where everything is pointless, yes its hard and yes it involves changing paradigms, but its NOT impossible. Even if our efforts produce little or no effect, doing nothing is not an option, since THAT outcome is predefined.

MFG

Ketraar

[pjknibbs]

And you're probably being too optimistic, maybe due to living in a country that doesn't use first past the post?

The thing is, first past the post really only works when you have two parties. If you introduce additional candidates all that tends to happen is that the system gets even unfairer to voters without providing any actual change. As an example: I hate UKIP with a passion and hope that they die out entirely after this upcoming election, but nonetheless I find it beyond reprehensible that they picked up more than 12% of the popular vote in the 2015 election and yet gained only 0.2% of the seats. Meanwhile, the Conservatives achieved a straight majority of seats on less than 37% of the vote...

[CBJ]

Exactly. In this country you achieve nothing unless you manage to poll more votes than anybody else in a given constituency, and that applies at every level from the most local right up to the national. If 51% of the people in your area are going to vote one way regardless, it doesn't matter what the other 49% do. And the more people that stand, the more fragmented the vote gets and the smaller the number of voters the winner has to have to win. And of course that last point also happens to be how the FN managed to get into the second round in the French presidential elections.

[Ketraar]

Indeed, as I mentioned in a previous post, FPTP is not really democratic and not sure why its still in use. Maybe people should rally behind trying to abolish that as a priority then?

MFG

Ketraar