I am not convinced they do, they keep voting to give away their privacy every year.
No, they don't. Turnout in the UK has dropped significantly because it doesn't matter who you vote for, the outcome is the same.
Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
101–110 of 292 posts
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, at what point do we say that wilfully refusing to absorb relevant information and then knowingly and willingly making a decision based on that lack of information is, indeed, their will?
I think this ignores the fact that there are very converted efforts to use well-researched methods to manipulate and mislead people at the ballotbox in favor of the vested interests. The same interests also conspire to keep people preoccupied with basic needs and distractions that leave them with little time to properly research issues.
At the end of the day, does it actually matter?
Assuming ‘it’s not their fault’ also removes consequences and/or accountability, which also encourages the behavior.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#103Well, they would have loved to stop migration and voted in droves for brexit for that. Cant have that though, democracy or not, can vote for any party, but cant have that result they all promise before the vote closes and never deliver once the vote is in.
The sad thing of course was that the people coming across on boats or clinging to the underside of lorries etc are not EU citizens arriving legally. Plus it's not like EU is the only source of migration (hellow commonwealth).
I think that the Brexit vote landed at a time when there was increasing general alienation within society, a general feeling of growing wealth inequality, of social injustice etc. We saw it with Trump's election, we saw it with Brexit. We'll probably see it with a reform majority in the UK parliament next election too.
There are global trends that the PM of the UK cannot change, but we live in a world of instant gratification so if the current PM can't make things change literally overnight, people are angry and annoyed.
Go read the comments section on any UK newspaper (left or right, tabloid or broadsheet) and the comments are really eye-opening (recommend doing this to at least get a flawed and partial cross section of what the vibe is). People are quick to anger and quick to point fingers. Might explain why we've had so many PMs these past few years.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could flip that argument. The bar set to remain was too low. As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21. > Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing Both sides lied, both sides exaggerated. The referendum to simply leave or remain would never have happened if UK Parliament went to the public more often with referendums about various treaties such as Maast…
>> As for 16 years old voting, I'd argue the age to vote should be raised to 21. Why? Brexit will impact 16 year olds for decades. A large number of the old farts who voted for it are dead now and won't have to suffer the consequences. If you're going to adjust voting ages but don't want to lower it, it makes sense that those over 75 don't get a say in something like Brexit. And if your thought is that 16 year olds d…
60 year old people are better informed compared to 20-30 year olds and more involved and vote more often. Your ageism lacks logic.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet, they voted for the governments that killed privacy and established surveillance in public, because they love privacy so much.
Per another comment here: "Generally speaking the more important an issue is, the less it is allowed to be affected by democratic processes." The trick is to have a two party system and agree on all the important points. There aren't any major parties willing to reduce espionage or ease up on Gaza. If elections are coming up, they stick to gender theory, school sports or Lake Ontario. "Vote blue no matter what" doesn…
[deleted]
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#106Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're being revisionist. It's not about the people in power, it was about the media. They controlled the narrative, and they were the ones that convinced everyone of illegal bendy bananas. > The very pro-EU faction at the head of the Tory government. When has any tory ever been pro-eu? i think you're misremembering how things went down.
> I think you're being revisionist Do you believe that either Leave.EU or Farage’s circus had the power to make a binding exit plan? How? What powers do you believe they had to do so? > It's not about the people in power, it was about the media. They controlled the narrative, and they were the ones that convinced everyone of illegal bendy bananas Errr, so the media should have made a plan? Not sure what you’re on abo…
David Cameron was guilty of over-estimating the British public. The Brexit vote was intended to put an end to the anti-EU contingent in the conservative party, he never expected that it had any hope of passing.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps a misunderstanding. In this case "majority" (or "majoritarianism") really means plurality . British (and US) democracy fetishizes winners , i.e. whoever comes first, whether or not they represent a majority of the electorate. In Britain you get all the power with 30% of the vote. Some might call that undemocratic.
As a Brit, I certainly think it’s a problem, because as you say, you can end up with a government with a large majority of seats based on a small proportion of electoral support. I much prefer the ranked choice system here in Australia. I’m sure there are flaws, but you tend to end up with candidates who are more representative of the wishes of the electorate, and you eliminate that “I’d better vote for A in case B g…
Then you push the coalitions forming outside of the party process to parliament where voters have no say compared to forming coalitions to within the party where party members have a say.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
> British political culture sacralizes majorities. I'm genuinely curious what you would offer as an alternative? Democracy should ignore the majority if it disagrees with the controlling cabal who hold the correct opinions?
Perhaps a misunderstanding. In this case "majority" (or "majoritarianism") really means plurality . British (and US) democracy fetishizes winners , i.e. whoever comes first, whether or not they represent a majority of the electorate. In Britain you get all the power with 30% of the vote. Some might call that undemocratic.
it isn't undemocratic, the purpose of the system is to produce governments that are able to govern
look at the last few governments, now imagine that we had a system that meant it was impossible to form a government if the government wasn't popular. there is no natural majority for any position that a political party in the UK can realistically take.
you don't end up with greater democracy, you end up handing unlimited power to unelected people working in government who end up being the only source of administrative stability
one of the main problems is that people in the UK who are in politics often disagree with voters at a fundamental level. changing the electoral system will not fix this. you will have elections, they will say they will fix problems they don't want to fix to win the election, and then their popularity will plummet shortly after as the insiders take over and do weird stuff that no-one voted for or wants. when you have governments that are repeatedly unable to perform very basic state functions, the problem is not the electoral system (or voters, one of the unusual aspects of politics in the UK is the blame and contempt that politicians have for voters, it is easy to see on this thread...perhaps you realise why they want proportional representation now).
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#109In the US we have tech companies complying with sketchy DHS subpoenas that don’t require warrants. We have DoJ targeting political enemies. We have FISA mass surveillance. It’s naive to think politically motivated surveillance can’t happen in the UK and elsewhere. Or to assume that only the “right people” will be the ones able to break encryption.
In the US we also have tech companies going out of their way to make their devices have strong encryption and be unbreakable.
Sometimes, with likely exceptions.
Re: Brits would quite like their private messages to stay private
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was virtually 50/50 and should not have proceeded. The bar to leave was set too low. 2/3rd better, and larger turnout should have been mandated. 16 year olds should have voted. The campaign to stay too weak. Mass confusion. Some particularly pernicious lies on the leave side too convincing. Brexit wasn't 100% going to happen, it was more like... Leave 17,410,742 51.89% Remain 16,141,241 48.11%
The failing was the one and done nature of it all. The vote should have been, should we entertain this idea? If yes, a second referendum on what Leave actually means when it comes to the final decision point. Y'know the same way that any remotely functioning democracy would approach something this large and nebulous. Iceland being just the most recent example. Instead the vote was "life carries on as is" vs "somethin…
Eh, the ‘beauty’ of democracy is it is allowed to screw itself as hard as it wants.