What new parties would you like?

[Borchester]

"You" refers to any individual, not you specifically

Sure. I thought that was the case. But I was just clarifying.

What you've written is not entirely clear, but I get the jist. Maybe you could expand? It's not often you and I exchange views, so I'm practicing what I wrote here

It is a bit like when you are in church and the priest says that you are all sinners and you think am I really? And you are secretly pleased that you still have it in you, but of course the priest may be referring to that lucky sod behind you.

It is all a question of how you care to interpret these things.

[DeppityDawg]

"You" refers to any individual, not you specifically

Sure. I thought that was the case. But I was just clarifying.

What you've written is not entirely clear, but I get the jist. Maybe you could expand? It's not often you and I exchange views, so I'm practicing what I wrote here

[Nalaar]

Before I reply, can I ask is that "you" the Royal you, or are you referring to me specifically?

"You" refers to any individual, not you specifically.

[DeppityDawg]

May be more of a conversation for another topic, but I think we can get there with three realisations -
1 - You are not your Ego.
2 - You are the result of circumstances beyond your control.
3 - Everyone else is also subject to 1 and 2

Great. Can I have chips with mine?

Before I reply, can I ask is that "you" the Royal you, or are you referring to me specifically?

[Nalaar]

There is always one!

Now, don't be so hasty there, lady. There's been some interest. Borchester was interested in the perks, you know, black uniform and Jackboots, Cromwell inquired if he would get to keep his steam tram pass and JoG wanted to join if he could invade a foreign country

I was thinking about asking you to be my minister for wimmins issues?

Ok then, I'll bite. I wish I could do away with this divisive polarised "I am superior to you" attitude that infects our political discourse. Where people are vilified and dismissed simply because they don't share the views of others. All sides do it. We all do it on here. No one is wholly innocent. Even Tootsie baby is not innocent.

I don't know how to do it, but that's what I'd like. No political party could ever be that I guess is the answer.

May be more of a conversation for another topic, but I think we can get there with three realisations -
1 - You are not your Ego.
2 - You are the result of circumstances beyond your control.
3 - Everyone else is also subject to 1 and 2.

[papasmurf]

We can't even ask road directions without being bombarded with multiple choices.

If I were going there I wouldn't start from here.

[T00ts]

Actually, I am not keen on all this brave new world lark. Providing the government keeps its stealing down to acceptable levels, I am happy with things the way they are. All this bright eyed idealism usually leads to well meaning oligarches and a shilling on the income tax.

Now you see I find that interesting. I did wonder at the outset if we would actually come up with any real improvements. I am not sure we have. Haven't we simply re-hashed what we have already with a few minor tweaks. Isn't it more that there is a feeling that perfection might be gained by all or at least most opposing ideas meeting across one table with one suggestion of different seating arrangements in Westminster to foil the current combative nature of the place.

My question would be, would that not make it a place of milk and water discussion? Would it not lead to no direction if so many varied notions were  amalgamated. We can't even ask road directions without being bombarded with multiple choices. On any given subject there are more experts with opposing views than we can shake a stick at. In that situation where does the leadership really come from?

[papasmurf]

The problem is no matter who you vote for we end up with a government.
All people wishing to stand for election as an MP should have to take an exam as to suitability for the job. They should also be psychiatrically  examined.
Their opinions should be checked against the reality. If there is a wide mismatch they are unfit for public office.
Having watched debates in parliament for many years a large number of current MPs are not fit for public office.

[DeppityDawg]

I don't think you will ever eliminate that from politics. It is human nature to be forthright about our own views and be dismissive of the ones we disagree with. It is human nature to defend positions we hold dear and attack those we have disdain for.

But I think parliament itself exacerbates these tendencies and is excessively adversarial, pitting opposite sides of the floor against each other. Less confrontational seating arrangements in a more proportional and representative parliament might help.

You're not the worst, but you are one of the worst culprits on here. You expect to get respect for your own views, but seldom offer any back, preferring instead to insinuate that anyone who might read a different newspaper to you is barely worth the time of day

This is not an exact science, but I find it to be broadly true. Those with largely right wing views tend to see the bad in people first, wheras those on the left tend to see the good first. Those with largely right wing views tend to be realists and those with left wing views tend to be idealists. This is the politics of opposites - "I am correct and those who disagree with me are *insert pejorative here*". Rigid approaches to everything are seldom correct, but this is what we all do - we do the same thing, over and over again and then we wonder why we get the same result - until we learn that EVERYONE has good ideas and bad, that everyone can be right sometimes and wrong the next, we are going nowhere except to polarise even more

No, I'm not perfect. And I dont agree with much of what you say. But I respect your right to hold opinions that are different to mine without casting you as some kind of frothing at the mouth idiot. I've taken far more time to try and engage with others views than you have ever done

[Borchester]

There is always one!

Now, don't be so hasty there, lady. There's been some interest. Borchester was interested in the perks, you know, black uniform and Jackboots, Cromwell inquired if he would get to keep his steam tram pass and JoG wanted to join if he could invade a foreign country

I am not so sure about that Deppity. I know a number of fascists and they aren't bad folk on the whole, but their conversation tends to be a bit limited. And they are a bit like re-enactors, what with all their swaggering around wearing back to front Hindu good luck symbols. But re-enactors usually have surprising depths of information about their subjects, while fascists are like left wingers and religious freaks everywhere. They have a couple of weary cliches that they use as a fail safe when asked to think and well, that is it really.

Actually, I am not keen on all this brave new world lark. Providing the government keeps its stealing down to acceptable levels, I am happy with things the way they are. All this bright eyed idealism usually leads to well meaning oligarches and a shilling on the income tax.

[srb7677]

There is always one!

Now, don't be so hasty there, lady. There's been some interest. Borchester was interested in the perks, you know, black uniform and Jackboots, Cromwell inquired if he would get to keep his steam tram pass and JoG wanted to join if he could invade a foreign country

I was thinking about asking you to be my minister for wimmins issues?

Ok then, I'll bite. I wish I could do away with this divisive polarised "I am superior to you" attitude that infects our political discourse. Where people are vilified and dismissed simply because they don't share the views of others. All sides do it. We all do it on here. No one is wholly innocent. Even Tootsie baby is not innocent.

I don't know how to do it, but that's what I'd like. No political party could ever be that I guess is the answer.

I don't think you will ever eliminate that from politics. It is human nature to be forthright about our own views and be dismissive of the ones we disagree with. It is human nature to defend positions we hold dear and attack those we have disdain for.

But I think parliament itself exacerbates these tendencies and is excessively adversarial, pitting opposite sides of the floor against each other. Less confrontational seating arrangements in a more proportional and representative parliament might help.

[DeppityDawg]

There is always one!

Now, don't be so hasty there, lady. There's been some interest. Borchester was interested in the perks, you know, black uniform and Jackboots, Cromwell inquired if he would get to keep his steam tram pass and JoG wanted to join if he could invade a foreign country

I was thinking about asking you to be my minister for wimmins issues?

Ok then, I'll bite. I wish I could do away with this divisive polarised "I am superior to you" attitude that infects our political discourse. Where people are vilified and dismissed simply because they don't share the views of others. All sides do it. We all do it on here. No one is wholly innocent. Even Tootsie baby is not innocent.

I don't know how to do it, but that's what I'd like. No political party could ever be that I guess is the answer.

[T00ts]

There is always one!

Now, don't be so hasty there, lady. There's been some interest. Borchester was interested in the perks, you know, black uniform and Jackboots, Cromwell inquired if he would get to keep his steam tram pass and JoG wanted to join if he could invade a foreign country

I was thinking about asking you to be my minister for wimmins issues?

[DeppityDawg]

There is always one!

Now, don't be so hasty there, lady. There's been some interest. Borchester was interested in the perks, you know, black uniform and Jackboots, Cromwell inquired if he would get to keep his steam tram pass and JoG wanted to join if he could invade a foreign country

I was thinking about asking you to be my minister for wimmins issues?

[T00ts]

A proper fascist party, naturally 

There is always one!