UKC

Sorry in advance for a, yet again, further political thread.

The title says it all really. Our system of politics is wearing me down. Ive always, as a salesperson in big industry, been taught that l should focus on my own strengths, the merits of my technology and what my company can offer. My customers find it terribly distasteful if l criticise my competitors and dont want me to pick out flaws of the competition preferring that I articulate why my tech is more beneficial to their circumstances, with proper evidence to support my assertions.

Our politicians dont seem to behave in such a way, seemingly hell bent on doing the complete opposite of this, spending so much time on debunking the opposition in such an unpleasant way.

Why dont they just focus on their own policies and let us decide?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I often contemplate a system with a civil service and no politicians. We would instead vote for policies electronically on a regular basis with an oversight process ensuring that the civil service worked efficiently and effectively to deliver those policy decisions.

It hasn't got a hope in hell of working but it's got to be better than having our choices defined by a closet control freak, a buffon, a racist buffon, a treacherous IRA supporter and the liberal democrats.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Viewing parties like two competing crews of a paddle steamer that's lost power and is crashing down a mighty unmapped river, with us the hapless passengers, helps me square things a little. No one is in control anymore. The river just runs too fast.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
I think the trend that you note is definitely more marked than it was up to say 20 yrs ago when 'The honourable member' actually meant something - difference Yes but respect also Yes. The adversarial system works OK if there are balanced 2 or even 3 components but breaks down when there is a dominant party in power. Some of the worst legislation takes place in these situations though the backlash several years later often moderates it (See Poll tax for eg). Currently I fear we have a dominance and I believe an arrogance that will cause difficulties for the minority parties and the people they might be said to represent. Me for one!

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

I like the idea that they should be proving themselves right, not proving the other lot(s) wrong, but it 'aint going to happen is it?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

The trend towards adversarial politics seems to be following the American path to an increasingly polarised electorate. In this country , in general those on the right have long adopted a slightly patronising tone but more recently those on the left seem ever more shrill and quick to label anyone who doesn't support them fully as an unfeeling prick or worse. Seen numerous recent examples of both on here and I can't see how it helps anyone get their point across.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Mild conspiracy theory time:

This adversarial approach to politics by voters is by design. Popular culture is 100% or thereabouts competitive - there are almost no co-operative narratives/stories (e.g. almost all televised sports are competitive, there are few/no co-operative sports shown. The only example of a televised co-operative 'sport' I can think of would be fishing/hunting shows). The saturation of competitive narratives teaches that winning is the way to solve problems - beating the other team into the ground - not conceding a single point. This approach is then applied to everything. And when it's applied to politics, we get what we have - a system where the word 'compromise' is seen as a sign of weakness instead of a sign of strength.

In reply to SenzuBean:
But you can have winning, by winning the debate, proving your point with reason and facts etc. Winning round your opponents to your view.

Or you can have UK politics, most convincing lie or promise wins.

Sweden had a party leaders debate on tv last night. There is no election due etc.. and they covered a range of issue. The government is a minority left wing coalition, who are pretty inept and only gained power because the fascist party took voters from the more moderate or right wing parties.(ukip/Tory thing).

Anyway the other parties could veto everything that comes through but instead they debate and generally water down the far left's crazy ideas to stop Sweden going back 100years.

In reply to summo:


But that means the other party must concede points - which is "losing", which isn't acceptable anymore.

In reply to SenzuBean:

But if your point was incorrect, without evidence etc.. then you have no point to lose in the first place? It would simply be an unproven opinion or stance.

The problem comes with 50/50 decisions etc.. Or when both sides have merit for different reasons.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Argument as war is a metaphor which is ingrained in our culture and is part of our every day discourse. It's not a conspiracy, no-one is doing it on purpose. If it wasn't war it could be dance. Imagine that!

Metaphors we live by. Lakoff and Johnson. You can even get a pdf online. Chapter one if I remember rightly.

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

what about voting for a ruling algorithm in this new age?

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Because in an election there isn't a 'none of the above / I'll think about it next year' option.

If you knew that your customer on 8th May was legally obliged to buy either your product or that of your major competitor then you'd take the same approach to making the sale.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:


Im not sure I understand.