Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
BanjoRules said:
Very sad day for French culture. Their traditions and culture are worth saving.
Click to expand...
Even Al-Jazeera is now reporting on the difficulties France's parliament faces, with the hastily cobbled together "coalition" only barely forming a majority and representing a desperate gamble by the centre in aligning themselves with the left.
From their ongoing commentary (now closed):
"Having called this surprise snap election a few weeks ago, President Emmanuel Macron will be “analysing” the results before taking any next steps, the French presidency said.
“Macron will, as guarantor of our institutions, respect the choice of the French people,” the presidency said.
The next presidential election will be in 2027, and it looks like France’s political instability will continue until at least then, with no alliance having a majority in parliament – and Macron’s own centrists weakened."

It's not a victory for democracy, it's an example of the weaknesses of an exploitable representative democracy.

France has been trapped by its own political culture for centuries now. Even after the original 1789 revolution, the radical leftists ended up sending their own leaders to the guillotine, for being too moderate and not acceding to their demands.
 
Precariously positioned is France, the jumbled together coalition will want to press the unified right into being unstable as much as possible because any power struggle within their own ranks will make them look incompetent against a solid unified message.

But nothing drastic should happen in France politically, no big changes, it should be quite stable in terms of legislation and regulation for a while since no block party will ram through anything.

It's my ideal form of government actually. Hung.
 
BanjoRules said:
Yeah, democracy is working just great !



View attachment 2042424

and the UK....what a joke. Leftists love this kind of democracy.
View attachment 2042435
Click to expand...

The UK graph is fascinating but not the condemnation of democracy you think it is. It’s just maths.

The graph is created by dividing the number of votes by the seats won, with the graph giving the impression that somehow the system is stacked against Reform UK and other similar parties.

Let’s use an example to show why this isn’t the case. Let’s take a 100 seat parliament with 1000 votes per seat.

Labour gets a 60% majority in 90 seats and a 40% minority in the other 10 seats, leading to 58,000 votes for 90 seats won (roughly 644 votes per seat won.

The Tories get a 50% majority in 9 seats, 30% minority in 90 seats and a paltry 10% of the vote in 1 seat. This leads to 31,600 votes for 9 seats won (roughly 3,511 seats per win) .

Reform UK get a 10% vote in 99 seats and then a 50% majority in 1 seat. This leads to 10,400 votes for 1 seat won.

What this example illustrates is that Reform UK were likely popular enough across the country (let’s say 15% of overall vote) but their support was not concentrated in enough places to actually win many seats.

Now what this example illustrates is that the way to get power is to either be appealing to a good 40-50% of the population everywhere (I.e Labour in the example) or to concentrate attention on enough seats to at least wield some influence (like the Tories). The system isn’t rigged, fringe parties just generally don’t command enough of the vote to win seats, even when popular everywhere.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Lobbster said:
The UK graph is fascinating but not the condemnation of democracy you think it is. It’s just maths.

The graph is created by dividing the number of votes by the seats won, with the graph giving the impression that somehow the system is stacked against Reform UK and other similar parties.

Let’s use an example to show why this isn’t the case. Let’s take a 100 seat parliament with 1000 votes per seat.

Labour gets a 60% majority in 90 seats and a 40% minority in the other 10 seats, leading to 58,000 votes for 90 seats won (roughly 644 votes per seat won.

The Tories get a 50% majority in 9 seats, 30% minority in 90 seats and a paltry 10% of the vote in 1 seat. This leads to 31,600 votes for 9 seats won (roughly 3,511 seats per win) .

Reform UK get a 10% vote in 99 seats and then a 50% majority in 1 seat. This leads to 10,400 votes for 1 seat won.

What this example illustrates is that Reform UK were likely popular enough across the country (let’s say 15% of overall vote) but their support was not concentrated in enough places to actually win many seats.

Now what this example illustrates is that the way to get power is to either be appealing to a good 40-50% of the population everywhere (I.e Labour in the example) or to concentrate attention on enough seats to at least wield some influence (like the Tories). The system isn’t rigged, fringe parties just generally don’t command enough of the vote to win seats, even when popular everywhere.
Click to expand...
I'll agree to disagree with you here Lobster. It is a condemnation of the electoral system in the UK.

I dont believe the first past the post system is even close to a representative democracy.

My view is that a healthy representative democracy should not result in a huge majority being handed to a political party only receiving 33% of the vote.

Happy to hear sensible non partisan suggestions for improving the situation but the system needs to be reformed.

1720418522926.png
 
BanjoRules said:
I'll agree to disagree with you here Lobster. It is a condemnation of the electoral system in the UK.

I dont believe the first past the post system is even close to a representative democracy.

My view is that a healthy representative democracy should not result in a huge majority being handed to a political party only receiving 33% of the vote.

Happy to hear sensible non partisan suggestions for improving the situation but the system needs to be reformed.

View attachment 2042631
Click to expand...

Whilst it may seem strange, I don’t believe there are any changes that could ‘fix’ this problem. The Tories simply didn’t appeal enough to the common person. Labour didn’t appeal that much either but 10% of the vote is quite a lot.

Basically to get a ‘fair’ distribution based on popular vote, you would have to divorce the results from location (basically just do a popular vote). This means that local politicians can’t campaign on area specific policies and would likely lead to certain issues being ignored.

You could look a redoing seat boundaries but this is best done by the AEC or equivalent. Politicians do it in the US and both sides regularly abuse the power (gerrymandering).

The reality is, you can either have what the US has, effectively a two party system where any vote outside of either one is wasted, or the Australian system where parties often don’t capture a majority of 1st preference votes but end up being the “best of the rest”. I personally believe preferential voting (and giving rewards based on number of primary votes) is the superior system but there will always be problems. You can’t represent everyone perfectly unfortunately.
 
A preferential voting system in the UK would make parties like Reform less relevant as they would end up as a vote for conservatives anyway.

Ultimately a lot of governments these days won by votes where first choice had them around a third. And in places like the US or UK that's also after the number of people who bother to vote at all do.

"Did not show up to vote" wins nearly every seat in the US prior to 2020.
 
BanjoRules said:
I'll agree to disagree with you here Lobster. It is a condemnation of the electoral system in the UK.

I dont believe the first past the post system is even close to a representative democracy.

My view is that a healthy representative democracy should not result in a huge majority being handed to a political party only receiving 33% of the vote.

Happy to hear sensible non partisan suggestions for improving the situation but the system needs to be reformed.

View attachment 2042631
Click to expand...
It's actually very close to Australia's first preference votes in last election.

results.aec.gov.au

First preferences by party - AEC Tally Room

First preferences by party
results.aec.gov.au
 
Randomizor said:
Maybe it’s a sign for the right to start running on actual policy rather than these lazy fear tactics?
Click to expand...
Views like yours are the reason why so many are sick of the left versus right utter crap as the behaviour of both sides of politics is so similar its not funny. If you check the behaiour of the far left protesters has so much in common with the behaviour traditionally aligned with the far right its not funny. Its the same intolerance of difference, the sane negative bullshit stereotyping and the same ignorance normally associated with the right. So go repeat your left versus right bullshit. If anyone actually looks into the result it was the French elite class living around Paris that voted less for the right than predicted and its still a case that alliances have to be formed for a government to be created. As predicted in the working class areas there was a strong swing to the right.
 
Last edited:
Randomizor said:
Maybe it’s a sign for the right to start running on actual policy rather than these lazy fear tactics?
Click to expand...
Maybe its time the extremes on the left stopped acting like the traditional far right and actually helped the groups they've claimed to represent that are turning away from those claiming to be on the left in droves.
 
Taylor said:
Precariously positioned is France, the jumbled together coalition will want to press the unified right into being unstable as much as possible because any power struggle within their own ranks will make them look incompetent against a solid unified message.

But nothing drastic should happen in France politically, no big changes, it should be quite stable in terms of legislation and regulation for a while since no block party will ram through anything.

It's my ideal form of government actually. Hung.
Click to expand...
There is a chance that things in France will change, though, as a result of this.
Remember what I was saying about the hierarchy of issues that people vote upon, and how some things are important enough to represent a sizeable shift in voting blocs - in the EU elections, it appeared as though immigration issues were at the forefront of the shift to the right.

In France, the shift to the right was probably based upon that very same issue. The far right, in particular, offer little else to enlist the popular support of the majority. That was evidenced in the first round of voting, where the right (as you say) represented a unified message whereas the left were represented by fractured parties and policies. Macron's party and the left were in direct opposition to each other on several issues, namely immigration (reforms 2023) and internal economic measures (e.g. aged pension reforms 2023), among others.
The "Yellow Vest" movement seems to have been largely forgotten by those outside France, but it was only last year the nation was seething.

France has now been to the polls three times in the last month, not counting the EU elections.

Enter the New Popular Front. Three weeks ago.
Now, the Centre has aligned with the Left. The shuffling around and withdrawal of candidacies designed to directly oppose the National Rally make for some interesting reading, particularly where the changes resulted in left and centre candidates withdrawing in order to avoid vote-splitting, and thus directing attention away from where those parties end up in direct conflict over domestic economic issues.
Policies of the New Popular Front induce a reversal of some of those policies introduced by the Centre only last year. Last minute, hip-pocket promises which are aimed to appeal to French citizens on an economic basis.
From the Wiki entry:
"The Front's common programme includes scrapping the 2023 French pension reform law, increasing public sector salaries and welfare benefits, raising the minimum wage by 14 percent, and freezing the price of basic food items and energy. This would be funded by reintroducing a wealth tax, cancelling many tax breaks for the wealthy, and raising income tax on the highest earners."
It's the Rudd thing - throw money at people, they'll love you and worry about adverse effects later... if at all. Target the aged (traditionally a major conservative element) and tell them that they'll have their pensions two years sooner.
"The Future of France" fades into the background, when the Yellow Vest movement and popular sentiment behind it is suddenly told they're to be given everything they want, regardless of what issues that may cause further down the track.

Stability, or no change, is exactly what the left want... with regard to the immigration issue, in particular.
Why would they want to change it, when it results in a new migrant every 11 minutes, many of whom are going to vote left and add to their supporter base.

Rather than paying heed to popular sentiment, with regard to immigration as one issue in particular, they've done the opposite and diverted attention away from what is clearly of paramount importance not only to France, but to all of Europe.
The left in France is not listening to the people - they're placating them.

All hail the Sixth Republic, I suppose.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Sherriff Incorporated said:
Views like yours are the reason why so many are sick of the left versus right utter crap as the behaviour of both sides of politics is so similar its not funny. If you check the` behaiour of the far left protesters has so much in common with the behaviour traditionally aligned with the far right its not funny. tIs the same intolerance of difference, the sane negative bullshit stereotyping and the same ignorance normally associated with the right. So go repeat your left versus right bullshit. If anyone actually looks into the result it was the French elite class living around Paris that voted less for the right than predicted and its still a case that alliances have to be formed for a government to be created. As predicted in the working class areas there was a strong swing to the right.
Click to expand...
That comment would have been far better directed towards some other posters on this board. Randomizer is a long way from being one of the types who engage all that often in reductionist crap, but I suppose we could hardly expect you to denigrate any of your... supporters... who might be far more prone to such generalisations.

As to the rest of it, I'd suggest you go look at the demographics of the French elections a little more closely. If, as you claim, it was the "French elites" who swung left against expectations in this vote, it might behoove you to also investigate why that might have been the case, rather than picking a statistic and leaving it there.

Who are the "French Elites" around Paris anyway? Got any demographic information on this group you've nominated a day after the elections? Or are you just making assumptions?

Over the last couple of decades, it has been the northern areas of France in general who have shifted right... against expectation and tradition.
Do some reading on the right wing movements and the gradual change in support for them (and the demographics involved) over the last 20 years.
 
Anyone who doubts Fatima Payman's intentions might want to look at some of things she's said which seem way more about representing views than attacking those who oppose her beliefs. Im not sure how the oz ALP can call themselves for minorities while blocking conscious votes when a politician from a cultural minority wants to speak from culture.
If the LNP treated a woman from a multicultural background like the ALP has (blocking her right to a conscious vote) it would be considered racist by most people.
 
Not a bad article.
I wouldn't say it's a case of France saying "non" to the National Rally, more of deflection as I noted above, but a catchy headline is a catchy headline I suppose.
The Conversation does have a little lean left, but is still worth reading much of the time.

theconversation.com

French say ‘non’ to Le Pen’s National Rally – but a messy coalition government looks likely

The latest surprise results have seen a left-wing coalition take the lead, but no party will be able to form a parliamentary majority.
theconversation.com theconversation.com
 
Sherriff Incorporated said:
Anyone who doubts Fatima Payman's intentions might want to look at some of things she's said which seem way more about representing views than attacking those who oppose her beliefs. Im not sure how the oz ALP can call themselves for minorities while blocking conscious votes when a politician from a cultural minority wants to speak from culture.
If the LNP treated a woman from a multicultural background like the ALP has (blocking her right to a conscious vote) it would be considered racist by most people.
Click to expand...

Love the little pin. Two flags on it, neither of which is the Australian flag.

What do you think the results would be if every minority not only had the right to be heard, but demand it like spoiled children?
The ALP have made it quite clear they favour a two-state solution. I've made a previous post about the difficulties associated with that solution, and why it can't just happen overnight.

Look, I agree with your sentiment, and there are obvious glaring inconsistencies within the Labor party (which should have been obvious a long time before now - they're not labor party issues per se, but rather issues revolving around the hypocrisy and conflicts of interest which swirl around left wing politics in general) but championing Payman is somewhat counter-productive. Her "intentions" are quite clear.
 
Episode IV said:
There is a chance that things in France will change, though, as a result of this.
Remember what I was saying about the hierarchy of issues that people vote upon, and how some things are important enough to represent a sizeable shift in voting blocs - in the EU elections, it appeared as though immigration issues were at the forefront of the shift to the right.

In France, the shift to the right was probably based upon that very same issue. The far right, in particular, offer little else to enlist the popular support of the majority. That was evidenced in the first round of voting, where the right (as you say) represented a unified message whereas the left were represented by fractured parties and policies. Macron's party and the left were in direct opposition to each other on several issues, namely immigration (reforms 2023) and internal economic measures (e.g. aged pension reforms 2023), among others.
The "Yellow Vest" movement seems to have been largely forgotten by those outside France, but it was only last year the nation was seething.

France has now been to the polls three times in the last month, not counting the EU elections.

Enter the New Popular Front. Three weeks ago.
Now, the Centre has aligned with the Left. The shuffling around and withdrawal of candidacies designed to directly oppose the National Rally make for some interesting reading, particularly where the changes resulted in left and centre candidates withdrawing in order to avoid vote-splitting, and thus directing attention away from where those parties end up in direct conflict over domestic economic issues.
Policies of the New Popular Front induce a reversal of some of those policies introduced by the Centre only last year. Last minute, hip-pocket promises which are aimed to appeal to French citizens on an economic basis.
From the Wiki entry:
"The Front's common programme includes scrapping the 2023 French pension reform law, increasing public sector salaries and welfare benefits, raising the minimum wage by 14 percent, and freezing the price of basic food items and energy. This would be funded by reintroducing a wealth tax, cancelling many tax breaks for the wealthy, and raising income tax on the highest earners."
It's the Rudd thing - throw money at people, they'll love you and worry about adverse effects later... if at all. Target the aged (traditionally a major conservative element) and tell them that they'll have their pensions two years sooner.
"The Future of France" fades into the background, when the Yellow Vest movement and popular sentiment behind it is suddenly told they're to be given everything they want, regardless of what issues that may cause further down the track.

Stability, or no change, is exactly what the left want... with regard to the immigration issue, in particular.
Why would they want to change it, when it results in a new migrant every 11 minutes, many of whom are going to vote left and add to their supporter base.

Rather than paying heed to popular sentiment, with regard to immigration as one issue in particular, they've done the opposite and diverted attention away from what is clearly of paramount importance not only to France, but to all of Europe.
The left in France is not listening to the people - they're placating them.

All hail the Sixth Republic, I suppose.
Click to expand...
So, in short, the left ran an effective campaign. The right didn’t. And that’s somehow all migrant’s fault?
 
Kram said:
www.abc.net.au

'Not up to me': Greens deputy won't say whether Hamas should be dismantled

Greens deputy Mehreen Faruqi says it should be left to Palestinians to decide whether to dismantle Hamas, as she also makes claims that ex-Labor senator Fatima Payman is being "vilified" by her former party.
www.abc.net.au www.abc.net.au

lol.
Click to expand...
My understanding was that the Afghan government has so far ignored any requests on behalf of Payman to cancel her Afghan citizenship, but she has followed all the correct procedures to do so and therefore can't be penalised in that respect.
That part is just bad reporting.

Faruqi... phht. Wants to reduce the whole Payman issue to "racism".
Her prevarication on the Hamas thing is obvious - I suppose the real question is why prevaricate. Pity we don't seem to have any journalists left who'll ask questions like that.
In no way is the question of who will be leading Palestine post statehood (should that come about) a "hypothetical". It's one of the core issues. The right to self-determination is, as I've mentioned before, an example of the kind of conflict that arises when moral values come into contention with practical reality.
 
poshman said:
Given the new information and research coming out about the Spicy Jab, have/are people:

A. Remained happy they didn't take it.
B. Sad they were forced to take it for work.
C. Still think people who don't take it are conspiracy nuts.
D. Concerned that the pharma companies and gov can't be sued.
E. Further convinced that govs cannot be trusted.
F. Would be fine with it all being handled the same way it was.

A combination is fine. I am hoping that it can be an interesting and civil discussion.
Click to expand...
Ive had 5.
6th coming up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top