A view that has been reflected by many people I've talked to about politicians (who they have worked closely with) in charge of functions is that the best ones are generally those that don't come with preconceived ideas, and as such are more willing to listen to the civil servants.
As such I am much less keen on suggesting SoS need to have experience in the area they are in charge of, because it's evident from others that this can actively hinder their ability to be objective.
My take is that what makes a good minister / SoS is the personality, and lack of preconceived ideas or agenda other than to improve the function / service provided.
while we squabble the far right have been busy in Ireland
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-67516612
my cousins were telling me about this - anti-immigrant sentiment in Ireland (of all places) a few weeks ago, at the time I was bemused, now less so
Squabbling among anti-racists has never been an issue when comes to challenging the far-right in the streets of the UK.
In fact it is the one thing that unites progressive people more than anything else, going back to the 1930s.....black shirts, the NF, the EDL, always unites the opposition to racism.
I can't comment on Ireland although I assume the same is true there.
kerley
Free MemberThere only seems to be room for a certain number of parties (2?) as all the others are just fringe parties. We can’t really have 100 different parties to appeal to all the political differences people have as none of the parties would actually get anywhere would they?
Anyone who wants the old Labour policies can vote Green but they don’t seem to be doing that, why is that?
FPTP of course. Why don't people vote green? Because we have a political system that pretends that 43.6% is a "landslide majority" while 32.1% is a "crushing humiliating defeat", that a 1.2% per cent swing can give you 48 seats, and that the correct outcome from those results is that 43.6% of votes gives 56% of seats while for another party 32.1% of votes gives 31% of seats and for the 3rd biggest party 11.6% of votes gives 1.7% of seats.
But here we are in a thread acting like PR is weird.
The greens? By all means vote for em but in the last election, they got 2.6% of the vote and therefore naturally got .2% of the MPs, as is right and proper under fptp. If you personally have about a million votes it might make a real difference.
FPTP of course. Why don’t people vote green?
Just asked my daughter who she would vote for when the election comes and she said she wanted to vote green but there's no point because they won't get in so she'll vote labour instead even though she doesn't like them. Quite depressing on the surface but lets be honest, with PR yes we'd end up with lots more green MPs, but we'd also get loads of far right reform/UKIP MPs, and probably more than the number of greens. And the main two parties are hardly going to give much away in coalition negotiations (see Scotland and/or the 2010 election), so the end result is much the same as we have today but with a load of unhinged rightwing fascists in parliament with greater leverage to spread their poison. If someone can propose a model of PR which doesn't dilute decision making and empower the far right then I'll vote for it, otherwise as you were.
With PP no ones feels like their vote is wasted in a GE.
Therefore they don't have to go and and do stupid shit like voting for Brexit.
Brexit was also a perfect example of the problem with governments being able to 'get stuff done'. If their main concern is appealing to a couple of hundred thousand swing voters in key seats rather than the other 45 million voters then stupid stuff ends up getting done.
Believe it or not, stuff gets done in PP countries as well. The difference is, it isn't done on a whim and can only be moved forward once there is general agreement and compromises have been made.
So stuff like cancelling HS2 based on the whims of a single moron tends not to happen.
I’ve had an interesting conversation with a far right support this evening, I use conversation loosely. He tells me that our vets fought for the wrong side, that this country is ruined because of that and he hopes that nazis rise again. Unfortunately he deleted his posts before I could screenshot them, normal poppy shagger but worryingly still a serving Para.
There was quite a bit of support for the nazis in Ireland, cos they were sticking it to the UK (as well as a lot of volunteers to fight for the allies). And there was still a healthy population of neo and old school nazi crackers there in the early 2000s when I lived there. Quite a nasty undercurrent of racism toward the African immigrants that were starting to land over there too.
Not really any worse than here or elsewhere but Ireland’s certainly not immune to the problem
dazh
Full MemberAnd the main two parties are hardly going to give much away in coalition negotiations (see Scotland and/or the 2010 election), so the end result is much the same as we have today but with a load of unhinged rightwing fascists in parliament with greater leverage to spread their poison.
This is just contradictory tbh. Do the smaller groups have leverage or not?
I’ve never understood fully why something say like providing clean water and taking away the sewage should end up as a political football<br /><br />
Money. It’s all about the money.
Money. It’s all about the money.
Which is pretty daft because the money for all this stuff is very easy to acquire. If the govt wants to spend money on something all it has to do is decide to do it.
This is just contradictory tbh. Do the smaller groups have leverage or not?
Not contradictory at all. The far right have an inbuilt advantage because as long as poverty and inequality exist people will look to blame easy targets. We’ve all done it. Can you honestly say you’ve never felt aggrieved at what others have f you think they haven’t deserved it?
You said "the main two parties are hardly going to give much away in coalition negotiations" and then straight away said that right wingers would have leverage. Pretty clear that this doesn't make sense. PR does give more power/voice to smaller groups than FPTP, in fact that's one of the great strengths, but it doesn't do this only for some small groups.
At some point you have to decide if you like democracy or not. If you do, then yes it gives a voice to people you wish had none. It's not a bug, it's a feature. But it also leads to a fundamental bias towards reasonableness, as is nicely highlighted here- and not because of a bias in the system but because it's more representative of actual human interaction. It's possible for total shitehawks to get a decent share of the vote or even the single biggest share, but it's also hard for them to work with others.
You think the greens are stronger than the far right wing?
By ‘leverage’ I meant the ability to influence the views of the voting public. The far right have always been better at that than the greens.
That's a pretty odd question? I can't answer without knowing what you mean by "stronger"? Or, alternatively, what are you getting at with the question? Electorally strong, politically strong (not the same), numerically strong, idealogically strong? More forceful, more committed, harder working, more united?
Stronger or not they are certainly more reasonable, which is why they've played a pretty solid part in UK governance in recent years. As a thought experiment, imagine there were 8 far right MSPs, what would they be doing? Answer, sitting in the house and booing and looking like idiots and being generally ignored. 8 greens? Supply and confidence agreement to form a government.
Meanwhile, FPTP has allowed minority parties to become majority governments and enact right wing policies that never had majority support, over and over again. So another thought experiment, take your best guess at what result we'd get in a UK PR election today, and then ask yourself how right wing the government that formed would be, and what the extreme right wing members of parliament would be doing.
By ‘leverage’ I meant the ability to influence the views of the voting public. The far right have always been better at that than the greens.
Yes, look at what types of people the two parties appeal to for the answer. What politics really needs to be is honest and any dishonesty and bullshit needs to be clamped down on by a regulator of some sort so the propaganda that appeals to the less intelligent doesn't get broadcast.
It is not so much having far right views, which some will have no matter what, but not getting those views wrapped in lies and delivered as propaganda and bullshit policies
The actual government have been blatantly lying now for years (yes politicians always lied a but but tat has clearly changed over the last decade or so. Brexit may not have even happened without the complete lies around what it would achieve
Which is pretty daft because the money for all this stuff is very easy to acquire. If the govt wants to spend money on something all it has to do is decide to do it.
sorry, I meant profit. It’s all about the profit.
If someone can propose a model of PR which doesn’t dilute decision making and empower the far right then I’ll vote for it
I have read it all now Dazh - you can't seriously be asking for a form of democracy, but one that only gives the people you like a voice. 🙄
I'd prefer the far right of the political spectrum to have no power either, but if a proportion of the electorate want that, then they do deserve a voice.
They dont deserve a voice but they are unfortunately entitled to it.
Just for the record, I would also like a form of democracy that only returned representatives I mostly agree with.
In theory, my preferred form of democracy would be FPTP. However, I don't think it works in an era of mass media. It probably started to not work with the advent of national newspapers, got worse with national TV broadcasters, and is now completely untenable in today's world of targeted social media.
FPTP would be best if MPs were only able to attract votes by campaigning locally. Each MP would be primarily answerable to the 10 to 15 thousand people who they represent. It's simply not the world we live in anymore now that the vast majority of views are consumed via national and international outlets. Local candidates simply can't compete by knocking on doors and putting up posters.
They dont deserve a voice but they are unfortunately entitled to it.
They used to make that claim on behalf of paedophiles, which is why Harriet Harman supported paedophile lobbyists :
I don't think that paedophiles have a right to be heard, nor anyone who preaches hatred and violence.
No problem with far-right if they preach loving-kindnes though.
I have read it all now Dazh – you can’t seriously be asking for a form of democracy, but one that only gives the people you like a voice.
No not at all, there are plenty of people and parties in parliament who I disagree with. Since the 1930s we've had a long tradition in this country of shutting down and shutting out the forces of far right hate, and for bloody good reason. Marginalising and silencing the Black Shirts, The NF, Combat 18, The BNP, EDL et al, sometimes with justified violence, is one of the few things this country has got right over the past century. But now you want to invite them into parliament and give them a legitimate platform to spread their hate? No thanks. If the price of that is not having a handful of green MPs then it's a price worth paying IMO.
Dazh you don't half talk some shit.
Care to point out the myriad far right MSP's we currently have under STV?
Exactly.
Once again, people are confusing elections with football games.
It really doesn't matter who wins an election. What matters is the resultant direction of the country.
The far right actually has more influence on the direction of a country outside of power than they do in power. Numerous examples of right wing and populist parties gaining power and then losing credibility and popularity once people realise they were talking shite the whole time.
The difference is that in FPTP the effect is amplified massively because of the massive majorities afforded to parties elected on a minority of the vote. With FPTP the problem is there is little restriction on the damage the nutters can do once in power.
Even if Wilders manages to form a government, his influence on the overall direction of the Netherlands will be far far smaller than the influence UKIP/Reform have had on the UK.
And yes, if PP means the far right gaining seats is inevitable then where are the far right parties (other than the Tories) in the Scottish Parliament?
@brucewee not being an arse but why do you use PP rather than PR? Feel like I'm missing something here.
Care to point out the myriad far right MSP’s we currently have under STV?
As if Scotland is an equal comparison to the whole of the uk. Besides to Scotland’s credit it’s never really had much of a far right movement, unlike its very much more white supremacist neighbour. Give them an inch they’ll take a lot more. You’d think we’d have learned that by now but it appears some still don’t get it. 🤷♂️
@brucewee not being an arse but why do you use PP rather than PR? Feel like I’m missing something here.
Do you know what, I honestly don't know. I would say it was a typo but I'm pretty sure I've done it more than once and didn't notice until you pointed it out.
Hope it's not the first sign of a brain tumour or dementia.
Hi all, I'm a long time lurker but first time poster on here so thought that I'd jump in at the deep end.
I'm interested in how people on here would classify 'far right' in the UK today? For example if I was to say that I think we should tighten border security in an attempt to stop illegal immigration while also vastly reducing legal immigration to say tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands would this be considered a 'far right' position and if so why?
Besides to Scotland’s credit it’s never really had much of a far right movement
Oh how I wish that was true. It's one of the myths that many Scots tell themselves. Perhaps the far right or hate based groups in Scotland are mostly connected to anti catholic sectarianism but they do exist and they usually bring a whole lot of other prejudices along with them . I give you the Orange Order.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58586533
There's also this Scottish government investigation into extremism in Scotland.Link to key findings
However I fully support our PR system in Scotland imo it reflects popular opinion very accurately, and if it did result in extreme right wingers being elected they would find that they have to make concessions to have any impact in parliament at all. T
I give you the Orange Order.
I nearly mentioned that in Scotland far right activity is mostly connected with the sectarian stuff but didn't because beyond hatred of catholics they don't really care about much else so it's something of a parochial issue, and mostly localised within one city.
For example if I was to say that I think we should tighten border security in an attempt to stop illegal immigration while also vastly reducing legal immigration to say tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands would this be considered a ‘far right’ position and if so why?
Depends on your reasons.
Why do you want to keep foreigners out?
Individual policies aren't necessarily far right (many far left groups share the same immigration policies). The far right aren't really about policies. They are about identifying scapegoats and then gaining popularity by convincing people that the chosen scapegoats are the cause of all your problems. They push the idea that all that's needed to fix the country is to just really punish these sub-humans and then all will be well.
Er no Orange Order bollox was alive and well on the West Coast when I lived there, pubs only showing Rangers or Celtic games, people being thrown out of pubs being pissed singing sectarian songs. I was quite surprised and thought all that crap had disappeared long ago. This was about 15 years ago.
Interesting, seems reasonable.
So what if my reason was that I believed that there's a limit on how many people can enter a country over the course of a year and be successfully integrated into that country, that if the population demographic changes too quickly you run the risk of creating more problems than you solve?
For example if I was to say that I think we should tighten border security in an attempt to stop illegal immigration while also vastly reducing legal immigration to say tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands would this be considered a ‘far right’ position and if so why?
Yes it would. Most immigration is legal, and the big numbers from last year was due to visas given to staff the NHS and social care. Tightening border security would only make a small difference in immigration numbers. Making working conditions better for nurses and care workers, improving their pay and job security would make a far bigger impact, so that current staff are retained and the work becomes a more attractive career option for new entrants. Just not issuing visa's would cause the NHS and social care to collapse.
But that would mean investing in the nation and not just running the country for the benefit of the asset classes, so the far right is financed to create a narrative of the nation being overrun with small boats to distract from the real problems that should actually be solved.
@dazh I appreciate that my edit to add the second link came after your edit. However the Scottish government paper talks about "mixed unclear and unstable ideologies " . So it seems that those who are members of sectarian organisations may also hold other extreme views. I also disgree with your comment about sectarianism being confined to Glasgow. I am from Ayr where if anything there appears to be more Orange walks than when I was a child in the 60s and 70s
I would certainly agree that the small boats are a distraction from the real problems MSP. I think the point I'm trying to get at is that there must be a maximum number of people that is desirable as a country and that it's currently impossible to have the discussion because anyone who tries is automatically labelled as racist or far right.
Really? Every single political party in the UK is in favour of “controlling” immigration, none are suggesting letting anyone and everyone in unconditionally.
The “Far Right” element comes in when you get into language dehumanising immigrants and blaming them for the unrelated struggles in peoples lives.
Sectarianism is still alive and well in Scotland, but not the blatant head-banging stuff I remember from the 70s and 80s. We have a local group of Ranger’s Supporters Club whose members don’t see anything wrong of sharing their photos of ‘holiday’ visits to Northern Ireland bonfires and marches in July on FB. The Labour Party continues to support candidates with Orange Order ‘credentials’.
Also is the hatred of the English in Scotland I've encountered far right politics or just bants over sport?
Kelvin you make a good point and that's the way things should be, personally I don't see it as a left/right issue. I do stand by my statement that it's difficult to have the conversation without terms like far right being thrown around though. Just a few posts above yours MSP said that the position I layed out would be considered far right
If someone can propose a model of PR which doesn’t dilute decision making and empower the far right then I’ll vote for it
the Scottish system. It just works. Highish thesholds at around 6% keeps fringe parties out.
Also is the hatred of the English in Scotland I’ve encountered far right politics or just bants over sport?
Hatred? Very very rare. Not had an incident for decades and I am very English sounding with a very English name
Just a few posts above yours MSP said that the position I layed out would be considered far right
I agree with the reasoning and sentiments in MSP’s post.
I do stand by my statement that it’s difficult to have the conversation without terms like far right being thrown around though
IMO the laws on immigration are already tough enough, in fact in some cases too tough. The framing of the argument that something needs to be done about immigration is pandering to racism. Immigration is a symptom of an economy badly run for the majority of the people in the country. More people need to think about why they so readily believe the lie that immigration is causing the problems and perhaps focus their attention on the real causes.
I never encountered any prejudice as an English-born kid moving to Glasgow as a 6 year old (of Scottish parents) nor again when moving back 3.5 years ago, the same for Mrs DB who is from Kent. My abiding memory as a kid was whether you were a Rangers or Celtic supporter and often the resulting smack for giving the ‘wrong’ answer. Anti-Englishness is often mistakenly assumed when it’s the prevailing loathing of Westminster politics and English-centric media. BBC Scotland News is particularly worthy of ridicule for its blatant bias.