A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Is there a cure for paranoia?
Re: Is there a cure for paranoia?  [message #32286 is a reply to message #32285] Fri, 26 May 2006 10:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JFR is currently offline  JFR

On fire!
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367



NW wrote:

a part answer is a revision of our electoral systems to reduce the risk of effective elected dictatorships (in the UK, by proportional represention so as produce a "hung" parliament,

Hmmm. I live in a country where there is proportional representation in an extreme degree. It leads to unstable government, where the leading party has to cave in to sectoral demands of its coalition partners. NW is thinking of a British political system where there are essentially three main parties represented in parliament. With proportional representation the number of parties will burgeon, because it will be possible for any organised group to mass enough support to pass a 5% or even a 10% threshold. First-past-the-post looks like political paradise from my seat in the grandstand.

To relate to Simon's latest question, IMO mass paranoia can be contained, perhaps, by a judicious use of the communications media. News broadcasts that enjoin the 'stiff upper lip' mentality and avoid using emotive terms such as 'crisis', 'sensational', 'dramatic', 'unprecedented' ... well, you can list them as well as I can.

But, ultimately, the containment of national paranoia depends on the political 'savoir faire' and 'sang froid' of the people at large.



The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
The Newson report  [message #32288 is a reply to message #32274] Fri, 26 May 2006 11:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Deeej is currently offline  Deeej

Needs to get a life!
Location: Berkshire, UK
Registered: March 2005
Messages: 3281



Timmy said of the Newson report,
>There was no common sense in the report you describe. It was a report intended to appease the vengeful public who wanted something to blame.

Did you read the report?

It may have been politically motivated, but it was nevertheless

- written by a clinical psychologist and signed by a number of academics who truly believed that not only were they right, that they were entirely justified, and that they were using good and logical "common sense"

- extremely persuasive on a first reading, to anyone, including academics. The flaws -- which were there -- could only be seen through very slow and careful examination of the evidence Newson presented. Doing that is not "common sense" in any sense of the word: it is scientific method.

The hysteria that came from it was not caused by the government or Newson or the academics who signed it: it came from the tabloid press, who twisted its words out of proportion. They claimed, for example, that it proved a link between video violence and violence in society, which it did not. Obviously, if you rely on tabloid descriptions of its claims you will have a skewed perspective. The report itself is actually quite sensible.

I repeat my question: who gets to decide what is common sense? Common sense is not "the applcation of real logic to an issue, not the twisting of logic" -- it is the application of what you already believe to be the case, so you don't need to justify yourself. This works fine where a situation has been encountered before many times -- it's common sense to tell off a child if he is nasty to his brother -- but it does NOT work where there is not necessarily a single, rational and correct answer.

David
Re: Is there a cure for paranoia?  [message #32290 is a reply to message #32286] Fri, 26 May 2006 11:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
NW is currently offline  NW

On fire!
Location: Worcester, England
Registered: January 2005
Messages: 1560



JFR wrote:
> NW is thinking of a British political system where there are essentially three main parties represented in parliament. With proportional representation the number of parties will burgeon, because it will be possible for any organised group to mass enough support to pass a 5% or even a 10% threshold. First-past-the-post looks like political paradise from my seat in the grandstand.

I have no problem at all with a proliferation of small parties, and with an electorate that shops around to find the best political deal. I think it's the best bet for ensuring that both legislation and executive action command the support of the mass of the population. I confess that my direct experience of working with large numbers of small political groups is many years ago, as a student sabbatical officer (I was an Independent, not a member of any political party): I think the experience has deeply shaped my political approach.

Actually, I'd like to see a second chamber of individuals (not parties) that could repeal any legislation by a vote of 34% (ie a minority vote) - on the grounds that any legislation that offended a third of us is almost certainly bad legislation ... but that I know is a pipedream.



"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night devoid of stars." Martin Luther King
Proportional Representation.  [message #32296 is a reply to message #32290] Sat, 27 May 2006 00:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cossie is currently offline  cossie

On fire!
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699



I have to disagree strongly with NW about the advantages of a proliferation of small parties. It's one of those solutions which sound fine in theory, but - on the clear evidence of countries where this situation applies - don't work out that way in practice. There are two distinct, though related, shortcomings.

Firstly, as JFR has already indicated, pure proportional representation will almost inevitable lead to a coalition government. There are usually two - occasionally three - principal parties, with incompatible political agendas. One or other of these will lead the government, but to do so it has to broker a majority by putting together a coalition embracing a number of smaller parties, some of which may represent 5% or less of the electorate. Securing the support of these minor parties has a price; the larger party must accept at least some elements of the political agenda of its smaller bedfellows. Thus we have a situation which gives wholly disproportionate influence to small minorities. That is certainly not the object of the proportional representation exercise.

Secondly, there is a much increased probability of a government defeat before completion of the normal electoral term. Superficially, that seems OK - if the larger party seeks to go against the wishes of its coalition partners, it must pay the price. That might be acceptable if the defaulting partners acted in the interest of the population as a whole, but in the nature of things that isn't the case; they act for the political advantage of their own parties. So again, the tail wags the dog.

An effective government needs time to implement its agenda. It cannot be done overnight. Even in the UK, which usually has a 'strong' government (that is, with one party maintaining a reasonable overall majority throughout its elected term), billions of pounds are wasted in changes of direction which owe more to political posturing than to any genuine political conviction. As an example, consider our road and public transport policy, which seems to have proceeded in ever-decreasing and increasingly ineffective circles for the last half-century. But our difficulties pale into insignificance in comparison with - say - Italy. There, the government has recently changed on a hairsbreadth majority from one coalition to another; the chances of the incoming coalition surviving for a full term appear to be slim. Yet one of the first actions of the new government has been to abandon construction of the Messina Bridge (linking Italy with Sicily), even though planning and preparation is so far advanced that repudiation of contracts may involve compensation measurable in billions, rather than millions.

There is, however, a half-way house. The Single Transferrable Vote system allows each voter to rank all candidates within his constituency in order of preference. When votes are counted, the candidate with least votes is eliminated, and his votes are credited to the voter's second-choice candidate. The process is repeated until one candidate has an overall majority. In the UK, we have three main parties - Labour and Conservative, which have alternated in government for almost a century, and Liberal Democrat. The latter party attracts about 25% of the popular vote, but holds barely half that percentage of parliamentary seats because of our first-past-the-post system. If we adopted the STV system, it seems pretty much inevitable that the Liberal Democrats would hold the balance of power in any parliamentary election in the foreseeable future. I don't know whether or not this would turn out well in practice, but at least the LibDems are a genuine political party with a wide-reaching agenda; they are in no sense a minority-interest group. This kind of proportional representation seems well worth a try; it would at least rein in the political excesses of the major parties.

As regards an upper house with a power of veto on a 34% vote, I don't disagree with the principle NW espouses, but I cannot see how it could possibly work in practice. If the members are non-political, how are they to be chosen/elected? However apolitical candidates may be, winning votes cost money - who pays?

In short, I recognise that our political system could be much better that it is, and we should work to improve it. But, as I tend to keep saying, balance is the thing!



For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
Oh, and as regards paranoia ...  [message #32297 is a reply to message #32296] Sat, 27 May 2006 00:39 Go to previous message
cossie is currently offline  cossie

On fire!
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699



... Marc's right. The first and most obvious step is to vote Democrat!



For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
Previous Topic: Kinda Funny
Next Topic: Shonen-ai
Goto Forum: