If he was the better candidate, why did he lose? Good politicians win elections, bad politicians lose them.
Poll: General election voting intentions poll
- Thread starter semi-pro waster
- Start date
- Status
If he was the better candidate, why did he lose? Good politicians win elections, bad politicians lose them.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
In politics, your manner and how you carry yourself has a massive impact on your ability to do the job. Ed does not come across as someone who can lead or inspire his own party, never-mind the nation.
I think Labour backed the wrong horse, but then I do think that strategically they were right to look for someone to the left of New Labour. I am not sure David Miliband could have escaped comparisons to Blair and he'd probably have alienated the old school Labour voters.
In other words, he didn't win enough support from the right people and lost as a result. Like it or not Labour are set up the way they are, the rules are clearly stated up front and it's up to the candidates to get the required number of votes.
Please don't vote based on how much you like the look of the party leader, or even worse, what the name of the party sounds like!
I hope this isn't the way most people vote but have a suspicion it might be
So, in other words, he won the election under the rules it is conducted under.
In what way is this possibly a criticism of him?
By a small margin, whereas nearly 50% more of the affiliated members (who are, incidentally, the largest group) backed Ed.
Not only in my head despite the poll: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/03/26/who-won-the-election-deba_n_6951852.html
Clearly Labour can take some comfort from the fact that most people would have thought the debate to have been a landslide for Cameron and that Milliban would be a pushover when he wasn't. This must be quite worrisome for the Tories who have staked 50% of their election strategy on trying to demonize and depict him as a hopeless noob. I can see this backfiring on the Tories in the event there there is no major setback for Milliband.
Last edited:
He wasn't that bad at all. He came across as both humorous and human: and by that I mean passionate, well intentioned and fair. I saw those people laughing in the audience and they simply struck me as those types who were prepared to laugh hand over mouth regardless. More fool them for underestimating him .
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
The poll is closed so no new options or votes can be added, it would need to be done in a new thread.
But what would it achieve to add a no vote option? Your choosing to abstain counts exactly the same on here as it does in any election. You've already got the right to refuse to vote (either in this poll or in the election) and not to be heard - that's your democratic right.
Out of interest though what would you replace democracy with?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
It would be nice to have a followup vote, to see if peoples attitudes have changed, maybe in a couple of weeks, and then again just prior to the election.
Ed the milliband today stated he would cap private companies profits when they work for the NHS, I wonder how he plans to achieve this.
What is a profit?
All dental practices are private contractors to the NHS. In this, they are not employees, they are either incorporated or self employed contractors.
If you afford them 5% profit, that might enable a take home of 5k-10k per year. Policy doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Typical Ed the Milliband. Policy which suggests a headline, but doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Ed the milliband today stated he would cap private companies profits when they work for the NHS, I wonder how he plans to achieve this.
What is a profit?
All dental practices are private contractors to the NHS. In this, they are not employees, they are either incorporated or self employed contractors.
If you afford them 5% profit, that might enable a take home of 5k-10k per year. Policy doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. Typical Ed the Milliband. Policy which suggests a headline, but doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Modified Technocracy, or dictorship, or Singapore, or Caliphate are being tried around the world currently.
Value for Money clauses, where profits on services provided are capped at a certain percentage, are reasonably common in the public sector and are enforced with audits. I would also guess that by the time this got to the white paper stage there'd be several exclusions including dentists and other existing NHS contractors.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Yes, in other words, complete fictional fabrication, made up drivel designed to grab headlines and votes.
Rather like BBC reporting today of documents prepared for potential benefit cuts. The civil service prepare documents all the time, means nothing, look at Northern Ireland, barely a policy implementation in five years yet we've 200000000 civil servants preparing documents every day.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Happy to re-run polling in a week or two just to see if there is any difference in voting intentions. I don't think adding an option for "democracy is an illusion" adds much though I'm willing to listen to arguments to the contrary.
Are these systems that you want to see replace democracy or are these simply alternative options that exist? Are any of these options working well?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
Singapore works well. The others are madness driving from some versions of theology, either made up centuries ago, or in the case of north korea made up recently and continue to be made up.
Modified technocracy would be a perfect solution if it wasnt for humans
Modified technocracy would be a perfect solution if it wasnt for humans
Singapore works well. The others are madness driving from some versions of theology, either made up centuries ago, or in the case of north korea made up recently and continue to be made up.
Modified technocracy would be a perfect solution if it wasnt for humans
I made a post about Singapore in SC this week, following the death of their founding father. I do acknowledge that they've done very well over the last 50 years with their system, but I do worry that they just had a bit of a benevolent dictator in charge. This is probably the best kind of government imo but the big problem is that you can't really design a political system to ensure it. Sooner or later you'll get a not-so-benevolent dictator.
What do you regard as a modified technocracy and which country uses it in your opinion?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,457
no one uses it, not that I am aware of anyway.
Best people for the role, assigned the role for as long as they remain the best.
Countries with long-term plans, not five year pamphlets.
I completely agree with you, I think he was a benevolent dictator, and pretty much all the Singaporeans I know would feel the same, and were quite happy for the most part to have him/them/their system.
There was complete outrage when it was shown one of their officials had accepted bribes, as they thought their people above such things, as they were and are paid sufficiently well that such things shouldn't be necessary.
Best people for the role, assigned the role for as long as they remain the best.
Countries with long-term plans, not five year pamphlets.
I completely agree with you, I think he was a benevolent dictator, and pretty much all the Singaporeans I know would feel the same, and were quite happy for the most part to have him/them/their system.
There was complete outrage when it was shown one of their officials had accepted bribes, as they thought their people above such things, as they were and are paid sufficiently well that such things shouldn't be necessary.
- Status