Corona Virus

Post Reply
lanternhall
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Fri May 22, 2020 11:42 pm

James Frazer wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:12 pm
Our system of democracy is probably past its best. That is probably why there is so much division. Too many people do not engage and the government of the day is effectively representing the views of a minority.
For example, Johnson’s “overwhelming mandate” was achieved by winning less than 14 million votes from an electorate of 47.5 million - less than 30% of the eligible voters backed this government which suggests that up to 70% of the country is likely to feel less than happy.
Absolutely spot on. Nobody tell me we live in a democracy. We don't.
Most people vote against the government.

redblueuptoyou
Posts: 123
Joined: Wed May 30, 2018 1:52 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by redblueuptoyou » Fri May 22, 2020 11:59 pm

lanternhall wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:39 pm
Localshot wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:15 pm
Jeremy only resigned after he lost the election. If he had won he would have continued to lead Labour. So the answer to your question is probably yes.
No-one actually knows for sure whether the decisions made by the government regards the virus were correct or incorrect. Unless the alternatives were actually in place it is all conjecture.
If you do some research, you will discover that it was Corbyn who suggested furlough.
Yep, all the ‘at least it’s not Corbyn in charge’ brigade seem to have forgotten how much he worked WITH the government at the start, suggesting furlough and a few other things that they then took up.

Corbyn has a lot of faults but during the start of the pandemic he was effective.

Apparently no sign of any repercussions for Cummings...

lanternhall
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Sat May 23, 2020 12:15 am

redblueuptoyou wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:59 pm
lanternhall wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:39 pm
Localshot wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:15 pm
Jeremy only resigned after he lost the election. If he had won he would have continued to lead Labour. So the answer to your question is probably yes.
No-one actually knows for sure whether the decisions made by the government regards the virus were correct or incorrect. Unless the alternatives were actually in place it is all conjecture.
If you do some research, you will discover that it was Corbyn who suggested furlough.
Yep, all the ‘at least it’s not Corbyn in charge’ brigade seem to have forgotten how much he worked WITH the government at the start, suggesting furlough and a few other things that they then took up.

Corbyn has a lot of faults but during the start of the pandemic he was effective.

Apparently no sign of any repercussions for Cummings...
Hi. You are right. Unfortunately people read headlines and don't think for themselves.

lanternhall
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Sat May 23, 2020 12:29 am

redblueuptoyou wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:59 pm
lanternhall wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:39 pm
Localshot wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:15 pm
Jeremy only resigned after he lost the election. If he had won he would have continued to lead Labour. So the answer to your question is probably yes.
No-one actually knows for sure whether the decisions made by the government regards the virus were correct or incorrect. Unless the alternatives were actually in place it is all conjecture.
If you do some research, you will discover that it was Corbyn who suggested furlough.
Yep, all the ‘at least it’s not Corbyn in charge’ brigade seem to have forgotten how much he worked WITH the government at the start, suggesting furlough and a few other things that they then took up.

Corbyn has a lot of faults but during the start of the pandemic he was effective.

Apparently no sign of any repercussions for Cummings...
Cummings is an unelected idiot who tells Johnson what to do. Hopefully he will not withstand backlash and will be gone. Can only pray.

Aldershot_Rob
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: England
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Aldershot_Rob » Sat May 23, 2020 9:36 am

I'd expect his role will become untenable given how public it has gone. There'll be too much pressure to not do anything.

Fuggletim
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 11:16 pm
Location: Whitehill
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Fuggletim » Sat May 23, 2020 9:53 am

Lanternhall, your last comment about people only reading headlines and not thinking for themselves is perhaps the most incisive comment there has been on this thread.

I was once told the only things you should ever believe at face value in the newspapers were the date and the football results.

James Frazer
Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:25 pm
Location: Alexandra Park
Re: Corona Virus

Post by James Frazer » Sat May 23, 2020 10:27 am

Birdman wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 8:06 pm
James Frazer wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:12 pm
Our system of democracy is probably past its best. That is probably why there is so much division. Too many people do not engage and the government of the day is effectively representing the views of a minority.
For example, Johnson’s “overwhelming mandate” was achieved by winning less than 14 million votes from an electorate of 47.5 million - less than 30% of the eligible voters backed this government which suggests that up to 70% of the country is likely to feel less than happy.
You can only go by those of the electorate who voted, not those that could have. I’m not going to disagree with your point that the government didn’t get a majority of the electorate that voted as the figures prove that to be the case (they only achieved 43.6%). The percentage of the electorate that didn’t vote through choice though can’t imo complain about the outcome. Whether they are now less than happy or not, they declined the opportunity to let their vote count, for whichever party. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results
Liken it if you will to the Referendum result. Approximately 72% of the electorate voted of whom 52% voted leave and 48% for remain (figures rounded +- to the nearest whole number). 28% didn’t vote in a basic two horse race.
To me, if you choose not to vote then don’t complain if an election/referendum doesn’t go the way that you wanted.
I don't necessarily disagree but perhaps it is about time someone made an effort to find out why so many do not engage with our political system.

Is it apathy ?
Is it because they believe their vote is meaningless (most constituencies will always be blue or red under the current system) ?
Is it ignorance or lack of understanding of the issues at stake ?

Most of our newspapers exacerbate the problems as they often slavishly follow a partisan line and ignore inconvenient facts.

Turnout in 2019 was 67.3%. The turnout levels in the 20th Century were as high as 84.4% in 1950 and consistently over 70% until 2001. Anecdotally, it would seem that a lot of young people do not engage because they are not confident of the issues or lack faith in the system.

The lack of engagement (IMHO) does not bode well for the future of the country. People who don't vote are possibly more likely to become anti-establishment and therefore ignore the directions of the establishment. Hey ho.

lanternhall
Posts: 541
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 1:37 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by lanternhall » Sat May 23, 2020 10:34 am

James Frazer wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 10:27 am
Birdman wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 8:06 pm
James Frazer wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 5:12 pm
Our system of democracy is probably past its best. That is probably why there is so much division. Too many people do not engage and the government of the day is effectively representing the views of a minority.
For example, Johnson’s “overwhelming mandate” was achieved by winning less than 14 million votes from an electorate of 47.5 million - less than 30% of the eligible voters backed this government which suggests that up to 70% of the country is likely to feel less than happy.
You can only go by those of the electorate who voted, not those that could have. I’m not going to disagree with your point that the government didn’t get a majority of the electorate that voted as the figures prove that to be the case (they only achieved 43.6%). The percentage of the electorate that didn’t vote through choice though can’t imo complain about the outcome. Whether they are now less than happy or not, they declined the opportunity to let their vote count, for whichever party. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results
Liken it if you will to the Referendum result. Approximately 72% of the electorate voted of whom 52% voted leave and 48% for remain (figures rounded +- to the nearest whole number). 28% didn’t vote in a basic two horse race.
To me, if you choose not to vote then don’t complain if an election/referendum doesn’t go the way that you wanted.
I don't necessarily disagree but perhaps it is about time someone made an effort to find out why so many do not engage with our political system.

Is it apathy ?
Is it because they believe their vote is meaningless (most constituencies will always be blue or red under the current system) ?
Is it ignorance or lack of understanding of the issues at stake ?

Most of our newspapers exacerbate the problems as they often slavishly follow a partisan line and ignore inconvenient facts.

Turnout in 2019 was 67.3%. The turnout levels in the 20th Century were as high as 84.4% in 1950 and consistently over 70% until 2001. Anecdotally, it would seem that a lot of young people do not engage because they are not confident of the issues or lack faith in the system.

The lack of engagement (IMHO) does not bode well for the future of the country. People who don't vote are possibly more likely to become anti-establishment and therefore ignore the directions of the establishment. Hey ho.
Does that not make the case for compulsory voting? I can see the flaws in that argument straight away. People just putting a cross in a box for the sake of it.
I do believe they have it in other countries though. Only a suggestion.

BillB
Posts: 147
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 1:04 pm
Location: Herne Bay, Kent
Re: Corona Virus

Post by BillB » Sat May 23, 2020 10:55 am

Seemed I good idea to me when I was living in Aussie.......

Crowthorne
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:18 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Crowthorne » Sat May 23, 2020 11:05 am

As I said before, I would only not vote if it were made compulsory. If you go down that road we are heading towards becoming the DPRK.

Chobham Shot
Posts: 102
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 8:30 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Chobham Shot » Sat May 23, 2020 11:15 am

Fuggletim wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 9:53 am
I was once told the only things you should ever believe at face value in the newspapers were the date and the football results.
Be just as well buying the Beano at the moment.

Localshot
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:31 am
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Localshot » Sat May 23, 2020 11:20 am

lanternhall wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 11:39 pm
Localshot wrote:
Fri May 22, 2020 4:15 pm
Jeremy only resigned after he lost the election. If he had won he would have continued to lead Labour. So the answer to your question is probably yes.
No-one actually knows for sure whether the decisions made by the government regards the virus were correct or incorrect. Unless the alternatives were actually in place it is all conjecture.
If you do some research, you will discover that it was Corbyn who suggested furlough.
IF that is the case then that is how it should be in my opinion. WE should all be working together to defeat the virus and not trying to score points off each other.

Aldershot_Rob
Posts: 278
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:54 pm
Location: England
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Aldershot_Rob » Sat May 23, 2020 11:27 am

I don't believe compulsory voting would work. How can you punish someone who doesn't believe in the system? That person may have an array of reasons for that, where they have faced injustice or been let down.
Then how do you punish them? You can't jail them and surely dragging anyone through to a prosecution will be too costly given then numbers.
Even then, they could just spoil their votes anyway.

I just feel their isn't a central lined party that represents the common people. Tories are seen as too right, labour too left along with the greens. Lib dems are all over the place. Brexit party, ukip whatever it is now was just a bit of a protest party. I don't think anyone took them seriously.
So what's left? Nothing that speaks or connects with everyday people.

The fact the conservative government won an election says it all. It speaks volumes for the opposition that they were seen by majority as the lesser of evils.

Pip@B
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 11:58 am
Location: more remote than Nobby's world
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Pip@B » Sat May 23, 2020 11:32 am

Journalist's job is to sell newspapers,not tell the truth.

Crowthorne
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2019 1:18 pm
Re: Corona Virus

Post by Crowthorne » Sat May 23, 2020 11:35 am

Aldershot_Rob wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 11:27 am
I don't believe compulsory voting would work. How can you punish someone who doesn't believe in the system? That person may have an array of reasons for that, where they have faced injustice or been let down.
Then how do you punish them? You can't jail them and surely dragging anyone through to a prosecution will be too costly given then numbers.
Even then, they could just spoil their votes anyway.

I just feel their isn't a central lined party that represents the common people. Tories are seen as too right, labour too left along with the greens. Lib dems are all over the place. Brexit party, ukip whatever it is now was just a bit of a protest party. I don't think anyone took them seriously.
So what's left? Nothing that speaks or connects with everyday people.

The fact the conservative government won an election says it all. It speaks volumes for the opposition that they were seen by majority as the lesser of evils.
Correct.


Post Reply