General election results 2015

[Anastasius]

Assuming that this is still visible

I would like the people in charge of making decisions about things to know something about the things that they are making decisions about. Failing that, that they really do listen and take account of those who do.

I would like a government that places well being at the top of the agenda.
I would like a government that places ethical behaviour above economics or trade (so no more selling arms and no more support for regimes who think it's ok to bomb people into submission)

That'll do for a start

Eminently sensible start apart from the last point. Presumably if this were implemented then included in your list would be no more support for Hamas ? Withdrawal from NATO, the UN? No more support for Saudi Arabia....which might have the knock on effect of a dramatic reduction in our oil supply. Rising prices at the pumps? Economy in reverse? No funds to support your second goal of 'well-being'? (How do you define that, by the way? ).

I agree with you - in an ideal world humans wouldn't be killing each other or trying to foist their religion on others and beheading them when they refuse to comply. Treating women as second-class goods. Killing homosexuals by throwing them off roofs. But then we shouldn't be bombing them...best let them carry on beheading. Nothing to do with us. Let's turn our backs, shall we ?

[MrGongGong]

I would also take the vote away from people who can only see two possible ways of doing things, a simple test is all that's needed :whistle-smile:

[P. G. Tipps]

Nothing curious about it - brute force is very effective indeed.

Only Mugabe's and Castro's regimes are still around and the latter's leader has already been shunted to the dunce's corner as his brother finally moves the country to hopefully more 'effective' government. As for Zimbabwe ... isn't this naturally rich country currently one of the great economic basket-cases of the modern world?

In fairness one cannot deny that all these regimes certainly have/had an 'effect', I suppose ...

[jean]

I think you are missing the point, Tippsy.

It was you who elevated 'effectiveness' above all other considerations as a criterion for good government. 'Effectivenesss' in this context means the ability to get things done, regardless of how many of those you claim to represent want to do quite different things.

But people pointed out to you that 'effectiveness' of government could be achieved by methods none of us would regard as 'good', and with results that could be clearly seen to be disastrous for those subjected to it, and was therefore probably not the most appropriate measure of good government.

Your reference to Cuba makes it clear that you now want to redefine 'effectiveness' to mean 'something more favourable to my own ideas'. Which takes us right back where we started.

[P. G. Tipps]

I think you are missing the point, Tippsy.

It was you who elevated 'effectiveness' above all other considerations as a criterion for good government. 'Effectivenesss' in this context means the ability to get things done, regardless of how many of those you claim to represent want to do quite different things.

But people pointed out to you that 'effectiveness' of government could be achieved by methods none of us would regard as 'good', and with results that could be clearly seen to be disastrous for those subjected to it, and was therefore probably not the most appropriate measure of good government.

Your reference to Cuba makes it clear that you now want to redefine 'effectiveness' to mean 'something more favourable to my own ideas'. Which takes us right back where we started.

Sorry if I my reference to Cuba (amongst the others mentioned by EA) greatly upset you, Jeanie.

When we are talking about different democratic electoral systems, as is the case here, I'd have thought that, logically, dictatorships wouldn't suddenly enter the equation ... how wrong one can be!

An 'effective government' elected via a mutually-agreed democratic system is quite different from one imposed on an unfortunate populace.

Even I had further assumed that everyone might agree that 'effective government' is hugely preferable to 'ineffective government' ... again how wrong one can be!

Finally, I was careful to make clear that 'effective government' can occur through any political party. Both the Attlee and Thatcher governments can lay fair claim to have been radically 'effective' because of the FPTP system. What people's own political views happen to be are irrelevant when judging 'effectiveness'

I also made clear that 'effective' doesn't necssarily mean 'good' but surely the very chance of being 'effective and good' is mightily preferable to being constantly and permanently 'ineffective'.

Don't you agree ... ?

[MrGongGong]

An 'effective government' elected via a mutually-agreed democratic system is quite different from one imposed on an unfortunate populace.

A "mutually-agreed democratic system" NOW there's an idea we haven't tried in the UK

Even I had further assumed that everyone might agree that 'effective government' is hugely preferable to 'ineffective government' ... again how wrong one can be!

"The government that governs best governs not at all" Thoreau

What people's own political views happen to be are irrelevant when judging 'effectiveness'

"again how wrong one can be" ?

[Dave2002]

Sorry if I my reference to Cuba (amongst the others mentioned by EA) greatly upset you, Jeanie.

Cuba is a sad case, but perhaps not desperate. It was not good before the Castros, with pretty corrupt "government" supported by some of the dodgier elements of the US. The Bay of Pigs incident appears to show that although the US thought it could do better, there really was support for the revolution, and it had to let go.

There were some good developments in Cuba. Literacy is now quite high, whereas before it was poor. Medical services are fairly good.

In other respects Cuba has declined considerably. Early on there was too much reliance on support from other communist countries, including the USSR.

Some people think that Cuba isn't civilised - "and you know, there isn't even a McDonalds ..." Thank goodness for that!

The gradually emerging rapprochement with the US is to be cautiously welcomed, though it could ruin some good things in Cuba if American big business starts to get a hold there. Sadly the Cubans (collectively, not as individuals) have managed to wreck some of their commercial operations - though perhaps that was also due to outside influences - and lack of trade opportunities. Sugar production used to be good, and Cuba was also able to supply its own coffee for domestic consumption.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba#Resources

There is thought to be oil nearby, though whether the Cubans will get to benefit is uncertain. It may simply be exploited by others, and in any case, oil is still a fossil fuel, and might well be better left where it is.

There has also been interest in a certain band - http://www.buenavistasocialclub.com/

Many Cubans do not seem unhappy, though some development and change might not be unwelcome.

[MrGongGong]

Cuba?
What a mess
They have NOTHING to teach us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba

[Dave2002]

Cuba?
What a mess
They have NOTHING to teach us

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Cuba

Yes, except that many well qualified school teachers are either leaving the profession, or doing other jobs as well, such as serving in bars or taxi driving, or working in or near hotels. With the rather peculiar two currency system they have there a one or two dollar tip from a tourist can be much more valuable to the locals than what they might get paid as a salary. There is indeed a mess, but quite how it's working out is a bit of a muddle. People are trying to figure out ways to survive.

I don't know much about their music education. Some of the musicians are good. They also have a ballet company with some remarkable dancers.

Still, there's always rum to fall back on, which they have in abundance. They have to do something with the surplus sugar cane.

[MrGongGong]

Yes, except that many well qualified school teachers are either leaving the profession, or doing other jobs as well, such as serving in bars or taxi driving, or working in or near hotels.

It sounds more and more like the UK :WINK: (apart from the literacy rates and class sizes)

[Flosshilde]

Both the Attlee and Thatcher governments can lay fair claim to have been radically 'effective' because of the FPTP system.

They might also claim (if they were still around to do so) that they were effective in spite of it.

[Flosshilde]

"The government that governs best governs not at all" Thoreau

I gthink the Belgians managed quite well withoiut a government recently.

[MrGongGong]

They might also claim (if they were still around to do so) that they were effective in spite of it.

Correlation is indeed not causation

[jean]

Sorry if I my reference to Cuba (amongst the others mentioned by EA) greatly upset you, Jeanie.

I'm not sure why you think your reference to Cuba, and EA's before it, upset me.

Even I had further assumed that everyone might agree that 'effective government' is hugely preferable to 'ineffective government'

Not necessarily. That was the point.

[P. G. Tipps]

Not necessarily. That was the point.

Nothing like a bit of 'ineffectiveness' to get things done, eh ... ? :incredulous smiley: