UK Politics Thread (Part 3)

[Noo_Noo]

@Dane

@Bekloppt

Scotland is more likely to be bought by China or invaded by Russia than taken over by Islamists.

Driving over the border on the M74 yesterday a thought struck me.
If Jimmy Krankies mob had got their way in 2014, would I have been subjected to a border control check?

No because Rees-Mogg says technology would have covered it.

Back in the real world in 2023 I guess maybe. Well probably actually, assuming that Boris would have implemented his McCain type deal.

[Noo_Noo]

@JU97ICE

The gutting-by-stealth of the NHS and all other public services doesn’t even register as a blip on their radar.

Pisses me right off this. These people can’t see it and blame anyone but the government.

[Mascot]

@Klopptimist

You do understand language? Maybe that’s an assumption on my part.

I don’t buy the premise you set out. I don’t think people are that selfish.

[RedSeven]

I’d say it would depend on which direction you were going

[RedOverTheWater]

@Mascot

I’ve always believed you don’t vote for what’s best for yourself. You vote for what’s best for society.

I’m not nearly as informed about the UK political scene as you, but just want to test this statement, logically.

Does it not follow that if everyone voted for what they perceived as the best outcome for themselves, then when it was all counted, the result would, de facto, be what the majority deemed was best for society?

[cynicaloldgit]

@RedOverTheWater

the result would, de facto, be what the majority deemed was best for society?

Brainwashed by the media.

[Bekloppt]

@RedOverTheWater

Does it not follow that if everyone voted for what they perceived as the best outcome for themselves, then when it was all counted, the result would, de facto, be what the majority deemed was best for society?

Let’s try that one with the environment. If we all vote for parties that uphold our rights to own gas guzzling SUVs, turn our heating up high and use unlimited single use plastic, it might be great for us individually, but disastrous for the society as a whole.

[tesh]

Most people have to be or are too short sighted and will act as selfishly as possible. The ones that can afford to or have a broader outlook are a minority - ergo we will never do what best for society.

When I look at society right now I think of a (yet another) South Park episode - the one where Cartmann (?) organises a contest between crack addicted babies for a ball of crack and tries to sell the “rights” to EA… as horrifying as that is, for me it closely resembles society’s struggles. Cartmann the entrepreneur, the babies are people trying to make a living who are addicted to the system and finally, in the backdrop there is a “personal bigger picture” that makes all things acceptable!

[Maria]

I thought Pratti Patel was the worst Home Secretary ever in my lifetime. I was sooo wrong. We have the mother of all evil witches, right now and who is even more thick than the previous Home Secretary. The state of her.

I am voting Labour, to get these bastards out of govt.

Adam Bienkov

Matthew Green

I know this is the time schools go on Skiing trips to France, Andorra and Austria. My school is going to France next week. The govt knows there would be loads of school trips at this time of year.

[Arminius]

@RedOverTheWater

Does it not follow that if everyone voted for what they perceived as the best outcome for themselves, then when it was all counted, the result would, de facto, be what the majority deemed was best for society?

It does not. There is an entire field of economics devoted to examining how this does not necessarily work to produce the optimal or even preferred outcome. The word ‘deemed’ ends up doing enormous work.

Notably, Arrow’s theorem more or less establishes that the way the question is presented can essentially determine the outcome.

Arrow’s impossibility theorem, the general possibility theorem or Arrow’s paradox is an impossibility theorem in social choice theory that states that when voters have three or more distinct alternatives (options), no ranked voting electoral system can convert the ranked preferences of individuals into a community-wide (complete and transitive) ranking while also meeting the specified set of criteria: unrestricted domain, non-dictatorship, Pareto efficiency, and independence of irrelevant alternatives.

[RedSeven]

I think(though i could be wrong)that the voting masses tend to vote for what is best for themselves.I think those in power generally end up trying to please the voting masses rather than doing what’s right so i vote for as strong an opposition as possible in the hope they can keep those in power in check.

[Dane]

@Bekloppt

Let’s try that one with the environment. If we all vote for parties that uphold our rights to own gas guzzling SUVs, turn our heating up high and use unlimited single use plastic, it might be great for us individually, but disastrous for the society as a whole.

I doubt if there’s a political party on the planet that would openly encourage that though.

[Arminius]

@Dane

I doubt if there’s a political party on the planet that would openly encourage that though.

…you mean other than America’s GOP?

[peterroberts]

I was gonna say that too. lol

[Klopptimist]

In other news BREXIT has repercussions.

[Dane]

@Arminius

@Dane

I doubt if there’s a political party on the planet that would openly encourage that though.

…you mean other than America’s GOP?

Well obviously excluding that “unique” nation.
They encourage the shooting of school children FFS

[Noo_Noo]

@Klopptimist

In other news BREXIT has repercussions.

So, just for the record, you knowingly voted for queues at Dover despite every Brexiteer stating it wouldn’t happen. You somehow had the foresight of the Boris deal before he was even PM and this met your expectation of what Brexit would be and exactly what you voted for.

It’s got a bit whiffy round here.

[RedOverTheWater]

Thank you for the info.

Please help me to process this. The UK does not have a ranked voting system. It is first past the post.

So I’m not sure how what you said applies there.

I think I read about a ranked system, with three choices, and it was impossible for the electorate to convert that into a community wide ranked outcome.

How does that apply to a first past the post system, where the individual voter is not asked to rank anything?

[RedOverTheWater]

On a related note, I do not take it as a given that Labour voters are motivated by voting for the good of society, while Conservative voters are motivated by voting more selfishly.

Perhaps Conservative voters (or many of them) vote that way precisely because they believe it is for the good of the country?

And perhaps some people vote Labour because they think it is better for them, personally?

[I voted Labour my whole life in the UK, but I think it’s a false construct if we label the motivation of voters, en bloc, one way or the other.]

[Arminius]

A first past the post system is a particular instance of a ranked system, where voters merely select their first choice. The observation is not bounded by electoral systems, it has direct application to how committees work, etc.

The translated observation for FPTP in the UK is that the Lib Dems might be closer to the ‘mean voter’ than any other party, and might be the optimum preferred second choice outcome - but are in fact nowhere near power