  |
 Do you prefer adversarial or cooperative politics? |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Jan 10 2018, 11:54 AM
Post
#1
|
|
 Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364 
 
|
I prefer the latter, in the form of coalitions, which is also why I prefer proportional voting systems. It prevents any one party becoming too dominant
|
 |
 
|
|
Jan 10 2018, 02:17 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
 
|
You omitted "Both" as an option.
Co-operation because it's sensible and gets more done with more agreement, and adversarial when you have an unreasonable position that can't be watered down by negotiation and reason. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2018, 02:45 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
      
|
Much of the way the UK works is based on confrontation. It's not just politics (reinforced buy the electoral system), the same applies to the judicial process when so much can rest on which side can afford the more expensive lawyers.
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2018, 03:16 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jan 10 2018, 02:17 PM)  You omitted "Both" as an option. Co-operation because it's sensible and gets more done with more agreement, and adversarial when you have an unreasonable position that can't be watered down by negotiation and reason. Perhaps one of the moderators can add 'both' as a choice then? But some 'unreasonable' positions are populist positions that a only a minority consider unreasonable. The question must be : Who decides what is unreasonable? For me, it should not be who complains loudest in leftist media.  |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2018, 08:28 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 10 2018, 03:16 PM) Perhaps one of the moderators can add 'both' as a choice then? But some 'unreasonable' positions are populist positions that a only a minority consider unreasonable. The question must be : Who decides what is unreasonable? For me, it should not be who complains loudest in leftist media. Unreasonable, say, for example, when you are looking after a physically disabled father, a mentally disabled mother, have a job and get absolutely no help or assistance or sympathy from the local Council, the NHS and the care system in general, despite having parents who are not wealthy. Think that's pretty much a case where negotiation isn't an option as the Tories are intent on making it even worse than it already is. Twice in the last 3 weeks I have had to call ambulances ( I was right both times that my father needed admission, and the ambulance staff were wrong on one occasion - private staff, hired by the struggling local services, felt he didn't. He is currently in hospital yet again having been let out too early, so I know more about serious illness than they do) I will fight the heartless Tories to the ends of the earth because there is no happy compromise when your family is at risk of death and your life is devoted to care, with NOTHING for me in any sense whatsoever, no money (just a reduced wage out of necessity), "leisure" time devoted entirely to posting on here to stay sane, and a shruggy shoulder attitude about "whaddya do bout it" as if it is just bad luck and not a dereliction of political duty. So yes, I trust the leftist media hasnt brainwashed me into just whinging about me over-reacting to, let me be absolutely clear here, life and death situations that I deal with. The Tories and Jeremy c**t in particular can go f*** themselves to Hell, because they don't care. Not a bit. You may notice I feel quite strongly about the NHS. As do many others. Not a minority. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2018, 09:19 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
That where the Tories just don't seem to get it. They will happily pay for their contents insurance and will expect to be able to claim on it if they are burgled. If they take out a life assurance policy and die soon afterwards, they will expect the company to pay out, subject to some perfectly reasonable checks. They will expect the company to pay the full amount even if only one or two premiums have been collected (unless there was a specific clause limiting the payout in the first few years).
The Tories don't seem to accept that tax and National Insurance operate on the same principle. We pay our tax and NI in the expectation that, if we need to, we can claim help. They just act like the most unscrupulous insurance company in constantly finding new ways of not paying out. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 10 2018, 09:51 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,072 User: 3,474
  
|
I'm not a huge fan of majority governments pushing through their agenda without much thought about other points of view. I have my concerns about the last session of the ScotParl for that reason. This is where adversarial comes in handy.
However more often in the UK it feels like it's needlessly partisan. Arguing for the sake of it and not with the aim of actually making a positive difference. Good adversarial in my mind should always lead to co-operation and the best for the country. |
|
|
|
|
Jan 11 2018, 06:33 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jan 10 2018, 08:28 PM) So yes, I trust the leftist media hasnt brainwashed me into just whinging about me over-reacting to, let me be absolutely clear here, life and death situations that I deal with. The Tories and Jeremy c**t in particular can go f*** themselves to Hell, because they don't care. Not a bit. I'm guessing they all have private medical anyway. Maybe if they were forced to rely on the NHS, like most of us, they would see that it got better funded... |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2018, 09:07 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Jan 10 2018, 02:17 PM) You omitted "Both" as an option. Co-operation because it's sensible and gets more done with more agreement, and adversarial when you have an unreasonable position that can't be watered down by negotiation and reason. I hoped that 'no preference' would kinda cover that. 
This post has been edited by vidcapper: Feb 26 2018, 09:08 AM |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2018, 02:15 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 26 2018, 09:07 AM) I hoped that 'no preference' would kinda cover that. My preference is co-operation, but also confrontational when faced with unreasonable unresolvable situations. "adversarial" makes it sound like war, when it's just standing up for what's right. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2018, 04:45 PM
Post
#11
|
|
 Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639
    
|
Tories are a super right wing landed gentry party right now.
No cooperation. Tories OUT OUT OUT Their vile alt right views should be consigned to the dust bin of history. Failing that, kept out of power. No co-operation. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2018, 05:16 PM
Post
#12
|
|
 I'm a paragon so don't perceive me
Joined: 3 February 2011
Posts: 37,409 User: 12,929           
|
^Really? I'm no fan but we all know that sort of polemic doesn't help anyone.
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jan 10 2018, 03:16 PM) The question must be : Who decides what is unreasonable? For me, it should not be who complains loudest in leftist media. Why even bring left/right alignment into that? Everyone can (and does) complain loud. But anyway, looks like John defined what was unreasonable, that's not the sort of thing they make laws about. My preference is co-operation, it's ridiculous how the duality of left and right now makes everyone think they must self-define to one side or the other before considering how to help the situation. Adversarial politics, if we must have it should be a strong opposition working a government that's on one side towards the middle ground. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 26 2018, 05:24 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639
|
They don't represent us. They are capitalists, rich beyond belief, landlords. They represent their vested interests.
They should be nowhere near power. Cooperation with them is detrimental to the 99%. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2018, 06:54 AM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Feb 26 2018, 04:45 PM) Tories are a super right wing landed gentry party right now. No cooperation. Tories OUT OUT OUT Their vile alt right views should be consigned to the dust bin of history. Failing that, kept out of power. No co-operation. QUOTE(Shia LeMuffQueef @ Feb 26 2018, 05:24 PM) They don't represent us. They are capitalists, rich beyond belief, landlords. They represent their vested interests. They should be nowhere near power. Cooperation with them is detrimental to the 99%. You have very a 18th Century view of the Tory party! I am always accused of having an unrealistic view of Brexit - yet I don't see a lot of realism in the way you perceive the 21st C Tory party. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2018, 07:10 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Iz @ Feb 26 2018, 05:16 PM) Why even bring left/right alignment into that? Everyone can (and does) complain loud. But only one side suffers 'trial by social media' when they voice their opinions. This leads to a reluctance to express themselves openly, instead preferring the ballot box - which is why results like Brexit, and Trump's election as POTUS are such a huge shock to the system. QUOTE My preference is co-operation, it's ridiculous how the duality of left and right now makes everyone think they must self-define to one side or the other before considering how to help the situation. I dislike that situation too - there is no party that caters to my combination of left-leaning economics, and right-leaning social ideas. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2018, 12:48 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 27 2018, 07:10 AM) But only one side suffers 'trial by social media' when they voice their opinions. This leads to a reluctance to express themselves openly, instead preferring the ballot box - which is why results like Brexit, and Trump's election as POTUS are such a huge shock to the system. I dislike that situation too - there is no party that caters to my combination of left-leaning economics, and right-leaning social ideas. there is no "trial by social media" that favours either side. There are plenty of over-reacting loons on both sides, but especially the bullying far right who advocate slavery and murder and you defend the right to voice those opinions (so hypocrite much that you moan about it, then support it).. the vast numbers of rational arguments don't come from extremists, and they far outnumber the loons. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2018, 03:02 PM
Post
#17
|
|
|
Paul Hyett
Joined: 4 April 2006
Posts: 25,346 User: 364
|
QUOTE(Popchartfreak @ Feb 27 2018, 12:48 PM) there is no "trial by social media" that favours either side. Maybe that's true, but you only *hear* about it being done by one side. QUOTE There are plenty of over-reacting loons on both sides, but especially the bullying far right who advocate slavery and murder and you defend the right to voice those opinions (so hypocrite much that you moan about it, then support it). Must I quote Voltaire again? For me, there's no incompatibility between condemning the actions they advocate, while accepting their right to say them. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2018, 06:58 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 13 April 2007
Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 27 2018, 07:10 AM) But only one side suffers 'trial by social media' when they voice their opinions. This leads to a reluctance to express themselves openly, instead preferring the ballot box - which is why results like Brexit, and Trump's election as POTUS are such a huge shock to the system. I dislike that situation too - there is no party that caters to my combination of left-leaning economics, and right-leaning social ideas. I suggest you branch out a little on social media. Just try looking at some of the things said about Dianne Abbott. At least the likes of Boris Johnson tend to be attacked for their opinions rather than their appearance. |
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2018, 07:06 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,072 User: 3,474
|
You only hear about one side because the mail only choses to report one side.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 27 2018, 07:10 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Buffy/Charmed
Joined: 18 April 2013
Posts: 44,030 User: 18,639
|
QUOTE(vidcapper @ Feb 27 2018, 06:54 AM) You have very a 18th Century view of the Tory party! I am always accused of having an unrealistic view of Brexit - yet I don't see a lot of realism in the way you perceive the 21st C Tory party. Lol x It is YOU with the wrong opinion. They haven't changed since feudal times. It is still the capitalistic class profiting off other people's labour with a small l. Look at the current crop, 250£ million gay/ woman hating Mogg, who also went and enjoyed a luncheon with an extreme right wing group who want to 'repatriate' anyone who is not completely white.  The ACTUAL state |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 09:31 AM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
