firemonkey said:

I think PR itself has the potential to be unrepresentative. That's because of smaller parties wanting more say than is warranted, based on their vote share.

But surely they will represent the will of the people (in a proportional way) so how could that be unrepresentative? Can you explain your concern please?

I think PR itself has the potential to be unrepresentative. That's because of smaller parties wanting more say than is warranted, based on their vote share. There may be ways ,perhaps, of avoiding such a situation??

I'm pleased a change has occured, and they at least seem to be doing what they said they would from the off. But my fears are that the world order is changing and with it the Wests position within it. As we continue to slide south on that list I think it is unrealistic for any elected government to resolve the significant issues we face without someone getting the billions of pounds back necessary to resolve the issues of the economy, NHS, equality, disability, housing... the list is really endless.

I also think we will never see proper voter participation until the system is changed.

But at least they are aren't Tories! For now someone else can have a go and I'll smile at that

LateToTheParty said:

Supermajority already has a meaning in other jurisdictions, so you ant just start using it to mean something else in the UK. 

You just DON'T want to open that "can of worms"!

(That can of worms being the misuse or redefining of words one....) 

I suspect that the moderator did not appreciate my not being content with being 'put in my box'. Still, the disappearance of the posts was reminiscent of Trotsky being surgically removed from all photographs involving other prominent Russian Communists and the old Roman practice of Damnatio Memoriae.

LateToTheParty said:

Supermajority already has a meaning in other jurisdictions, so you ant just start using it to mean something else in the UK. 

I have to disagree with this - the word can be taken into another field and used however it is used, There are no grammar police to dictate how a word can and cannot be used in a new environment and even if there were, society is always, like, changing how words are used (see what I did there?).

LateToTheParty said:

That article says the exact opposite of what you claim...

It says the word has no official meaning. Yet. But still it is used - that is how languages evolve and grow,

To say is means something opposite is disingenuous.

LateToTheParty said:

A supermajority in the US means two thirds of the seats

The US has a different electoral system completely to the USA so you are comparing apples and oranges.

If you want to get technical with the term then I refer you to Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

A supermajority is a requirement for a proposal to gain a specified level of support which is greater than the threshold of more than one-half used for a simple majority.

So that puts it at 75%. Labour currently have 63% of seats which is closer to the 66% you suggest, so how do you chose a measure to meet the criteria which are not yet defined?

I don't see the point in arguing further as there are no concrete facts to mark as goalposts here and the journalists were creating new vocabulary around the fact Labour now have unchallengable levels of power based on only 34% of the vote.

That article says the exact opposite of what you claim...

Nicholas Allen, professor of politics at Royal Holloway, University of London told the i newspaper the term “supermajority” is meaningless in the UK parliamentary system. As there are 650 seats, to have an overall majority one political party must win over half, or 326 seats.

Supermajority already has a meaning in other jurisdictions, so you ant just start using it to mean something else in the UK. 

A supermajority in the US means two thirds of the seats, needed to impeach a president, or pass an amendment to the constitution. Labours majority gives them no more powers than the Tories previous 80 seat majority. It was a scaremongering term thrown about by the desperate Tories. 

LateToTheParty said:

And "supermajority" is not a thing in the UK, it's just a majority.

Supermajority is a new word and was coined for the current election.

It has no dictionary definition as yet but it is intended to refer to a "massive majority" which is what Labour clearly have.

Background to the term is here: https://fullfact.org/election-2024/supermajority-parliament-explained/

Just because it is not "official" does not mean it lacks meaning as is the case with most new words.

I guess my reading of the question is a friendly exchange respecting someone's right to an opinion

I get the impression that this is a bit of a trick question, not by the OP, but in general because nobodies expected to answer yes to it without any qualifying comments.

Totally agree with this one - I’ve listened to enough of Gemma O’ Doherty’s livestreams about exposing corruption in Ireland enough to know about how corrupt our world is and even since Covid, it’s been shocking to discover just who within the truth and patriot movement have been “wolves in sheep’s clothing” as “controlled opposition” 

Would love that Billy.

My view is the Tories had to go even though I am a supporter.My concern is that Labour have got in because the Tories are not liked not because people wanted Labour.This could lead to disolusionmant.I would like to have PR so people vote positively and we would by and large get what people want

In this podcast, Dieter discuss with Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell the key questions around net zero and climate change today, and what would be involved in transitioning to a net zero world.

https://dieterhelm.co.uk/category/energy-climate/

In the same school house but a year above me,at Felsted.

Recenlty I watched a video where a lady from the washington post addressed either the U.N or the W.E.F. and compalined that "the Alt media has taken away their power to shape the truth".

Or something that sounded exactly like that.

The (threatened) existing media machine has been caught repeatedly with it's pants down and the alt media is merciless in exposing it's widespread perfidy. 

That particular hit piece suggests that conspiracy theories "incite violence", yet anyone who posesses a childs understanding of violent people know, they'll just find another reason to do violence.

As a fully radicallised but non-violent individual, I may well experience similar levels of outrage to the violent man about some of the true stories I've come across, but I express my rage by sarcasm and by being ready with the right bit of the truth, at the right time when people need to know.  

Currently we are closer to nuclear annhilation by the russian federation than we were in the infamous "Cuban Missile Crisis", and they have put the missiles in place a few years ago, run excercises ever since and told us in no uncertain terms via the U.N. and that dipperlomacy stuff, that if we act in a way that threatens mother Russia existentially,they will use them. 

Us giving the ukranians the means and support to blow up two (so far) Russian Fedration nuclear defence early warning radars inside russia like they have been doing, is covered by their doctrrine, and we really should stop doing it.   

BUT you read or heard NONE of THAT easily verifiable factual information on the mainstream media, but they did install that alarm thingy on everyones phones and the government DID tell us just after the Russians moved those yars bateries into position, we should keep a certain amount of suplies on hand at all times... 

I know a few things about military matters and I've played the excellent board game "Nuclear War" and I can tell it in terms of operating a motor vehicle safely.

Natos political/military situation right now resembles a a 1980's BMW 5 series that been recently fetched out of a garage after a LONG lay up to be the ride for a gang of coke heads being driven at speed head on towards one of those huge great trucks that pull the sarmat missiles about.

They think they are "playing chicken" whereas the other driver knows that his vehicle is too big to swerve, it's built to survive greater shock than a poorly driven BMW can inflict, so all he can do is lean on the horn and brace for impact whilst hoping some sense enters the other drivers head, or oen of teh pasenegrs oevr powers him and takes control of the wheel...  

Kapisch?

The climate crisis is very real, and this forum is now beginning to worry me a great deal. Climate scientists are not "mentalists" and it's not a tool of control by the "globalist deep state" (for one thing, are you saying the incredibly rich Oil industry is NOT part of some "deep state", that somehow they got left out of the draft when the deep state was formed?)

Please read a few books on the subject of the climate emergency. It's the biggest threat we face as a species.

"but if you have the capacity to do some research" - unfortunately many conspiracists believe searching the internet and watching flashy YouTube videos constitutes research. It doesn't. Of course we should apply critical thinking to the stuff we read and watch. But that doesn't mean tossing a well-formed explanation for the way things are because you can't empirically observe the evidence for it yourself. You do have to trust that there are enough people out there *who can indeed* repeat the experiment and get the same results, or that in the age of citizen journalism and a free press, complex fictions leak and fall apart. For example for the moon landings to be a hoax would require a conspiracy of silence by millions of ordinary people. It's not effective "critical thinking" to question whether we went to the moon, it's an ignorant rejection of the testimony of millions of people. 

The reason why a position holds popular appeal, and is the "current consensus" is not because the "deep state" are controlling the narrative, it's just that's the way all the evidence points. And those who go against the consensus need strong evidence to the contrary. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the moon-hoaxers, and flat-earthers have none. It's not "critical thinking" to examine a body of evidence and reject it out of hand *without counter-evidence*. It's just ignorance of how things work: the scientific method, replication of studies, the effort needed to perpetuate a lie among a large community of people. 

I Sperg said:

LTTP, You say that like it's a bad thing!

I Sperg makes a very valid point.

While I disagree with most conspiracy theories for various reasons I do not dismiss them out of hand as I've experienced enough things in my life and working career to see behind the veneer of what we see presented to us (I worked in the government, civil service and a military contractor at stages of my life).

I know there is some substance to some of the conspiracy theories, not because of something I read on a blog or was told but from what I have seen / touched.

To always blindly accept what we are told is the path of a fool in my opinion. There may be times when it is expedient (eg policeman telling everyone to get off a train) but if you have the capacity to do some research then it often shows shades of truth to create an outcome.

Live and let live, that's the way. Besides when there is a thunderstorm then the tinfoil hat brigade will all get zapped anyway ;)

How conspiracy theories polarize society and provoke violence

'In today’s technologically interconnected world, the ability to concoct and spread conspiracy theories has become easier than ever before. This became evident after the recent assassination attempt on former U.S. president Donald Trump. Millions flocked to social media to share their interpretations of the event and the would-be assasin’s supposed motives.

“BlueAnon” theories suggested that the attack was staged to influence the upcoming election. BlueAnon, a play on QAnon, refers to conspiracy theories espoused by liberals.

The rapid dissemination of such theories has fuelled already existing echo chambers, where misinformation was amplified often without verification or critical examination.'

theconversation.com/how-conspiracy-theories-polarize-society-and-provoke-violence-234786

LateToTheParty said:

you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

LTTP, You say that like it's a bad thing!

May I present a perspective that you might well have not considered, at the possible risk of you fidning out that your existing ideas about us may need adjusting to fit wider reality?  

Conspiracy Theory for me is literrally "harmless entertainment" exactly like the X-files is entertainmen for many "normal" people.

It does have the frisson exactly like T.V's X-files of there being small nuggets of truth hidden in the fantastic stories I read/view etc.

There are MANY like me. I've never worn a tin foil hat, although I sometimes wish I had one to whip out when the conversation gets stupid as it can with some people, the very second one departs from "Groupthhink".

Equally, I have almost completed my "room which is also a good tecnical faraday cage", where the internet will only get in on a cable, and the mobile phone will never ring etc. And I can see if a suitably large sized suspemnded lead sphere does indeed work as a gravity wave antenna, adn also if oen potted plant by the window in an earthed faraday cage fares much differently to a sibling parked near our router. 

Conspiracy Fact, which I have also been exposed to, is a whole different and more dangerous and scary area to dabble in, and I really don't recommend anyone do that. People actually have died simply as a result in trafficking in conspiracy facts.

A.K.A describing an inconvenient, or "not wanted" aspect of true reality...  

"proven to not work" - by whom, for whom? It's not a binary outcome, all systems work for some people, the trick is to try to engineer a system of government that works for as many as possible. During the Blair/Brown years, people barely talked about politics because it was just working for the majority. Also "globalist deep state" - again you sound like a conspiracy theorist.