Find Out What's Happening At The Photography Show 2021

Should voting in the General Election be made compulsory?


gcarth Plus
17 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2019 3:19PM

Quote:Love to hear how you justify saying you never brought up the subject of compulsory voting but I know you will give it a shot

There's nothing to justify. Everyone knows that I brought up the subject of compulsory voting as a topic but I wasn't supporting it.
I was responding to your quote: Clearly, I had not brought up compulsory voting with regard to your quote.
Quote:NO to Compulsory Voting!!!

Were you perhaps simply adding a new comment and saying "NO to Compulsory Voting!!!"
I assumed, rightly or wrongly, that you made that comment in relation to the text that you followed it with.
Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
15 Dec 2019 9:06PM
1 So I saw a topic in the forum list. "Should voting in the General Election be made compulsory?"

2 I clicked Add Comment and wrote "NO to Compulsory Voting!!!" *

3 I looked above my comment and saw you in the middle of arguing that something you said must be true because it was on the ITV website, ITV is reputable when it agrees with you Tongue but it's not when it's big star Piers Morgan is slagging Corbyn off on a morning?

* I apologise that I mistakenly thought you were advocating compulsory voting to try to come to terms and come up with reasons that Corbyn lost the election when it's clear to me, Corbyn and others that voters rejected Corbyn's policies in favour of Johnson's Brexit promise. It wasn't even close. It's the worse Labour result for decades.

It's not just due to media bias otherwise you would have to explain how he got the great result he got when he cost May her majority, were the media not attacking him then??
Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
15 Dec 2019 9:12PM

Quote:However, what I said was that there could have been a hung parliament without the lies in those ads (admittedly unlikely).

No Garth this is what you said:
Quote:"How can you be so dogmatic? You can only be correct if the PR simulation I quoted is inaccurate. Why should you assume it is inaccurate before you can even supply evidence for your assertion?
Look, I'm not interested in scoring points - I'm trying to give you perfectly reasonable arguments."


Where do I mention the accuracy of your PR simulation and why would that have any affect on my opinion that there would not have been a hung parliament without the fake ads (with or without somebody's PR simulation)

Your PR simulation has no relevance to this election, we don't have PR, why should I consider it before saying that I don't think removing the false ads would have resulted in a hung parliament.

What about the big exaggerated Labour fib that CPRA identified? How many voters did that sway to come back the other way?
gcarth Plus
17 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
15 Dec 2019 10:22PM

Quote:Where do I mention the accuracy of your PR simulation
You inferred that the simulation doesn't necessarily suggest a hung parliament, All I'm saying is that there would have been a hung parliament because the simulation was based on the actual result of the election (unless by some chance that somone has miscalculated in their extrapolations).
In other words opinion doesn't come into it - barring any miscalculations i.e. a flawed model.

Quote:Your PR simulation has no relevance to this election, we don't have PR, why should I consider it before saying that I don't think removing the false ads would have resulted in a hung parliament.

It didn't have any relevance in this election, as you say, but I was simply pointing out what would have happened if the election results had been arrived at through PR.
I was trying to demonstrate how PR would have given a fairer result, in my opinion - not good but much better.
Sorry if I didn't make things clear.

Quote:2 I clicked Add Comment and wrote "NO to Compulsory Voting!!!" *


Sorry, I thought you were criticising me when you said that.Smile

Quote:Your PR simulation has no relevance to this election, we don't have PR, why should I consider it before saying that I don't think removing the false ads would have resulted in a hung parliament.
Ah! I see where we are at cross-purposes.
I was referring to a hypothetical PR election that gave the same result and thought it could just about feasibly come up with a hung parliament without the lies. (I know - it's a bit of a long shot!).

I hope this clears things up a bit. I think I get were you're coming from.Smile

Quote:It's not just due to media bias otherwise you would have to explain how he got the great result he got when he cost May her majority, were the media not attacking him then??

Yes. I notice you rightly say "It's not just due to media bias..." Hmm. I go along with that because you still allow for some media bias.
It's an interesting point you make actually, and I'm going to think about it.Wink
When I say I'm going to think about it, I don't mean with the view to dismissing your assertion but with a view to explaining the situation.
I suspect I'm going to come up with something like "the mood was different at that election"!Smile I really don't know!
PS. It's getting late I think I'll wait until tomorrow.

15 Dec 2019 10:56PM
If voting in a GE became compulsory, And a person refused to vote.
Would that person be penalised ? and what would the penalty be?

(A good thing regarding Brexit is, If a person claimed , that being forced to vote is against their human rights, they cannot take their case to European Courts.
Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
16 Dec 2019 12:35AM
It's great to see that you took the time to re-read maybe more than once and realise that I'd not dismissed the PR hypothesis the way you first thought, my position was actually really simple. Thanks for doing that.

I understand your passion, I understand that sometimes you are fighting off a few people at once and having to keep track is harder.

I am not lying when I say I'm politically more left than right - you have noticed that I'm horrendously skeptical and fact check loads of stuff, even if it's something that makes my preferred 'side' look good.

I used to turn a blind eye to stuff that didn't validate my world view and focus on the articles that agreed with my opinion. I had a really bad confirmation bias.

I try to find out the flaws in my arguments and change my mind a little bit when I learn something new. I might have to concede something or at least try a different argument.

It's made a massive difference when debating politics with friends, I rarely say something that they can debunk, I have accurate facts at my fingertips, I might even know the valid counterpoints to my own arguments and often mention them first.

That's why I will pull you up if you state opinion as fact, cherry pick too much or never concede that sometimes, Jeremy Corbyn - or whoever might get something wrong, Boris might get something right. Your arguments will become much more valid, more finely honed and you will be taken much more seriously.

I think you always look for the hidden meaning, the actors in the shadows pulling the strings, when sometimes it just is what it is.

When debating online we get into fights far too easily, words are 'heard' in the reader's mind, often in the wrong tone.

Am really going to try harder with forums from now on.
Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
16 Dec 2019 12:38AM

Quote:A good thing regarding Brexit is, If a person claimed , that being forced to vote is against their human rights, they cannot take their case to European Courts.

I think we'll still signed up to Human Rights, we'll still go to the Hague. I think that the EU and the European Human Rights stuff is actually totally separate things. I might be wrong and someone will tell me and I'll look myself tomorrow when I get up.
gcarth Plus
17 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
16 Dec 2019 8:40AM

Quote:When debating online we get into fights far too easily, words are 'heard' in the reader's mind, often in the wrong tone.


Great post Chris.I couldn't agree more!Smile


Quote:Am really going to try harder with forums from now on.

So am I.Smile
I have a feeling our moderator "answeronapostcard" will approve of this!Smile

Anyway, I've got a few things to do this morning, but will get back to you and the forum later in the day. After a cursory glance, I don't find anything else in your latest comments to disagree with.Smile
gcarth Plus
17 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
16 Dec 2019 7:05PM

Looking at the reasons why Corbyn did so much worse in the recent election than in the 2015 election, I’ve come to the following conclusions with my very basic initial observations:

1. Corbyn did relatively well, around the time of the 2015 election because he had a big new following among the young.
2. The Brexit issue became increasingly important and divisive in the political debate as each year passed (people wanted “Brexit done”).
3. Corbyn already had a limited amount of popularity and he became increasingly unpopular when he sat on the fence and was seen to be indecisive. Was he actually indecisive or trying to be democratic? I don’t know, but he was certainly seen to be indecisive.
4. As Theresa May was seen to be rather indecisive, or at least, seen to be ineffective, Corbyn managed to hold his Party together – just about – until the allegations of anti-Semitism became even more numerous as certain Friends of Israel MP’s in his own party increasingly undermined him.
5. Then Johnson came along: Corbyn is a more serious, thoughtful man than Johnson but serious, thoughtful men don’t necessarily win elections – e.g. Michael Foot. The politicians that win elections have the gift of the gab, charisma, charm and positivity – of which Corbyn conveyed rather less of these characteristics than Johnson – Johnson smiles more – he’s more extrovert (even if Corbyn was the more honest and principled).
6. The BBC, Channel Four news and other political programmes appeared to remain quite impartial much of the time (Let’s face it, Johnson and Corbyn both got a good bashing at times).
However, I believe the underlying anti-Semitism issue should not be underestimated in it’s contribution to the downfall of Jeremy Corbyn. I think this issue has been weaponised by Friends of Israel by MP’s in his own party along with a complicit media.
I’m not trying to stir things up with anyone here - or looking for arguments. I’m simply expressing the way I see things.

I think there is too much focussing on personalities in all parties across the media and not enough focussing on policies.

Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
19 Dec 2019 2:22AM
Did you hear Blair blaming Corbyn? Taking no blame - Blair has been trying to reverse the referendum vote as hard as anyone.

I was listening to Jeremy Vine on Radio 2, as well as millionaire Blair lecturing us and a few Labour MPs were also quoted blaming Corbyn, but then we heard from their constituents, they were calling in etc saying "NO! The reason we didn't vote for you, eg Yvette Cooper, was that you wanted to deny the democratic referendum result"

Blokes from places which had elected their first ever Tory MPs made it clear that it was Brexit that made them vote for Tories they hate.

Yet the weak MPs, Blue Labour I call them, were trying to ignore their personal positions on Brexit and blame it all on to Corbyn

I'm not a Brexiteer but I support democracy. If Brexit had been reversed there would have been serious civil unrest and it would be hard to blame people.

It seems people liked Corbyn's policies like Free Broadband and Rail Nationalisation, they are the norm in some progressive European democracies.It wasn't those which scared voters.

Another Blairite was in the studio, forgot his name, he tried to say the £3 supporter thing was why Corbyn got elected as Labour leader. It has been debunked before. He would have still won both leadership contests without the £3 thing.

It was horrendous. Cooper will be attempting another leadership shot, end of real Labour opposition and back to Yvette's Tory Light Sad

Actually you can still listen, but you need to take blood pressure tablets first

Jeremy discusses the future of the Labour Party

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000ccjr

gcarth Plus
17 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
19 Dec 2019 9:47AM

Quote:
Actually you can still listen, but you need to take blood pressure tablets first

Oh, you're so right, Chris!
To be fair, I thought Jeremy Vine played a pretty neutral role.
I thought the journalist, Rachel somebody or other (Shelby?) was excellent, - probably because she echoed my own beliefs 100%.Wink
However, the obnoxious ex-councillor who supported Blair wasn't fit to lick Rachel's boots. He made mendacious comments about Corbyn supporting terrorists etc. What he said is simply not true. Corbyn was trying to engage in a dialogue aimed at achieving peaceful outcomes (even Thatcher and Blair's ministers had to talk to the IRA leaders before some sort of peaceful outcome could be achieved.

Quote:Blokes from places which had elected their first ever Tory MPs made it clear that it was Brexit that made them vote for Tories they hate.
That's right.
I think it's hard to deny that Corbyn became increasingly unpopular but I think that Brexit factor was really what caused or exacerbated his unpopularity.

Quote:I'm not a Brexiteer but I support democracy. If Brexit had been reversed there would have been serious civil unrest and it would be hard to blame people.


Well, you might well be right. However, I think there will be plenty of that anyway.

Quote:It seems people liked Corbyn's policies like Free Broadband and Rail Nationalisation, they are the norm in some progressive European democracies.It wasn't those which scared voters.
That's right. However, I reckon Corbyn was silly to promise too many good things which nobody really believed were deliverable in the 'real world'. (I mean, even if they were deliverable, I doubt if the Establishment would allow it).

It is really nauseating how the BBC and other media try to beat Corbyn to a pulp while they give a platform to war criminals like Blair.
That man took us into an illegal war with Bush and Blair. Blairites like Yvette Cooper supported him.
Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General at the time, declared the Iraq as being illegal.

Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
19 Dec 2019 6:16PM
I agree with pretty much all you say. Vine was good, he attacked the opinions of both sides. Shelby was really good. The way she backed up what she said with data and the way she stood her ground but without becoming aggressive. Unlike her opponent who sounded a little bit angry.

You're going to hate me for saying this, I supported the war. I think it was legal, but barely. Saddam had been mucking UN inspectors about since Clinton's time in office, he had broken shed loads of UN regulations and international laws. He was gathering together chemical weapons and was keen to get his hands on other weapons of mass destruction.

It was coming, it was either war then or war now.
gcarth Plus
17 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
19 Dec 2019 7:07PM

Quote:You're going to hate me for saying this, I supported the war.
Well, a lot of people did support the war. In fact I nearly convinced myself that it was a justified humanitarian war if they could only take oiut Saddam Hussain without killing innocent civilians.
Then when the Western coalition failed to heed weapons inspector Hans Blix when he declared there were no WMD's and went ahead with their illegal invasion, anyway, I felt nothing but contempt for Bush, Blair and the Neo-cons. When I saw Bagdhad light up like bonfire night - I realised then that absolute wanton carnage was inevtiable.

Quote:Vine was good, he attacked the opinions of both sides.

By the way, I can highly recommend reading the latest Media Lens critique - "The Arrogance of the BBC" - fresh on the Media Lens website today..
You may or may not agree with all they say but you should certainly find it interesting...Smile


Quote:It was coming, it was either war then or war now.
Well, yes, the Neo-Con 'Project for the New American Century' had planned the US invasion of a number of Mid East countries - General Wesley Clark is on record as saying that the Neo-Cons declared that “We’re Going to Take out 7 Countries in 5 Years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”
These decisions were made after 9/11, apparently.
Interesting how the West is so pally with the headchoppers from Saudi Arabia - even though much of the terrorism comes from there!
This is why I despise the dirty world of politics.
Chris_L 7 5.5k United Kingdom
20 Dec 2019 7:31PM
Blix said he found "a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments"

Saddam had befriended North Korea, he was shopping for nuclear weapons from them. We could have waited for solid evidence - like mushroom clouds over countries of his enemies. We could have continued appeasing Hitler instead of declaring war on him. We could have ignored Saddam when he annexed Kuwait but we chased him out. We could have let him mess inspectors around until it was too late.

Democracies have many enemies in the Middle East, we first have to kill the ones who seem the most determined to kill us and then take their oil from them. They would not think twice of doing that to us, enemies that think nothing of beheading aid workers, torture, burning alive, sex slaves etc.

If we wait until a Saddam-like dictator gets his hands on some nuclear weapons, perhaps planning to earn himself some virgins in Paradise then we will have waited too long.
gcarth Plus
17 4.1k 1 United Kingdom
20 Dec 2019 10:43PM

Quote:Blix said he found "a stash of nuclear documents, some Vulcan boosters, and several empty warheads for chemical weapons. More inspections were required to determine whether these findings were the "tip of the iceberg" or simply fragments"
That's right. I should have said Blix found no substantial evidence of WMD's.
The weapons inspectors had to leave Iraq before they could finish their job because the US and UK wanted an excuse to go to war immediately and a lack of evidence would not provide them with that excuse..
Blix said, America's pre-emptive, unilateral actions "have bred more terrorism there and elsewhere."
He was absolutely right, in my opinion.
Scott Ritter said the weapons inspectors “discredited almost all of the intelligence-based charges both the US and Britain had levelled against Iraq, while failing to uncover any evidence of the massive stockpile of WMD that Iraq had been accused of retaining.”


Quote:Democracies have many enemies in the Middle East, we first have to kill the ones who seem the most determined to kill us and then take their oil from them. They would not think twice of doing that to us, enemies that think nothing of beheading aid workers, torture, burning alive, sex slaves etc.”

I have to disagree with that. Surely we in the West helped create these head chopping, suicide mad men in the first place. We in the West installed Saddam Hussein in the first place. Then we supplied him with chemical weapons. We are quite happy to be best mates with Saudi Arabia were many of these head choppers originated.
“If we wait until a Saddam-like dictator gets his hands on some nuclear weapons, perhaps planning to earn himself some virgins in Paradise then we will have waited too long.”
Well, all I can say to that is with all the West’s meddling in other nation’s affairs, we are hardly helping our cause are we?

Quote:We could have let him mess inspectors around until it was too late.
Yes, I think he did mess the inspectors around all along but nevertheless, that doesn't mean he had WMD's. Saddam thought he was clever and liked to think he was in control - he was a player.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.