miss_s_b: (Default)
[personal profile] miss_s_b

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 09:11 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gwenhwyfaer
Because you think voters won't be too careful about differentiating by 2015, or because you think it'll weaken the GPs' chances as a whole if they aren't careful about differentiating?

Personally I think this is a masterstroke; granted, not every GP is any good, but I can't think of any better rejuvenation of democracy than having half the professional politicians in the house chucked out on their ear by people who have a very tangible record of actually achieving something really good in the world before going off to serve - well, rescue - their country. Not to mention the commensurate effect on corruption levels. My only sadness is that as someone in a (marginally) Labour constituency I won't get the chance to vote for a GP myself. Because I really would jump at it.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 10:15 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gwenhwyfaer
I was under the impression Huppert had supported the WRA?

Richard Taylor stood in 2001, on a platform of saving Kidderminster's hospital. He won. And won again in 2005 - and lost to a Tory in 2010 (but I bet Kidderminster wish they'd re-elected him now). So it's quite possible that doctors are pretty much the best placed group to be able to cope with the pressure and hard work.

And as for rightward leanings - I'm waiting to be told whether or not I need to rehome the cats and put my affairs in order. It simply cannot be any worse for me than it is right now. And doctors would, at least, recognise that a person's GP is perfectly capable, as they always have been, of accurately assessing whether or not that person is able to work - far more capable than a bunch of mercenaries working for an incompetent IT firm with an evident remit to kick as many people off ESA as possible.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 01:14 pm (UTC)
davegodfrey: South Park Me. (Default)
From: [personal profile] davegodfrey
My last (Labour) MP was, IIRC, a blairite clone, but was also a GP. There's quite a few of them out there.

It'd be interesting to see what kind of MP these GP's make. One might think that having a background as a GP might make them better at representing their constituents.

Date: Friday, March 23rd, 2012 02:19 pm (UTC)

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 05:51 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
Taylor was the counterexample I was going to mention, and yeah, he stayed in, both worth noting he did so as both the LibDems and the Liberal party stood aside and campaigned for him instead-there was apparently some bad blood locally and the rump Liberals still existed as a result. When that was resolved and the LDs decided to put up a candidate, he lost-I suspect the Tories put up more of a fight as well.

My parents MP is a former GP who won one of their Open Primaries (Wollaston), I've not been following her views on this bu thse has been quite trenchant overall.

And yeah, that the ATOS situation still hasn't been resolved after the mess Labour set up is frustrating.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 07:06 pm (UTC)
daweaver:   (Default)
From: [personal profile] daweaver
Ah, Dr. Taylor, the MP for a neighbouring constituency to mine. Broadly against foundation hospitals and Europe, in favour of free universities and striking, and generally in favour of small-l liberal principles. It's not unfair to say that he turned out sympathetic to the Lib Dem party line in the '01 and '05 parliaments. This observation doesn't generalise beyond the one member.

Kidderminster was one of the few places where the Liberal Party did well after 1988. Fran and Mike Oborski were the leading lights of the party in that area, building significant personal votes. Mike passed away in 2007, and I expect - with some regret - that the local Liberal Party will wither when Fran leaves the stage.

For the record, both the Lib Dems and Liberal Party stood down in 2001, backing Dr. Taylor. The Liberal Party did stand a candidate in 2005, and the LD rejoined in 2010 when the Liberals stood down. By then, I got the impression that Dr. Taylor was seen as a generic none-of-the-above candidate. There will be a market for that sort of sentiment in 2015, but I can't see such candidates winning under the largest minority system.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 10:49 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
I can't see such candidates winning under the largest minority system.

Would depend on the seat. I could see it doing well locally-it's effectively a 3-way split seat with a lot of history of voting Independent in some of the wards.

There are local voters that don't like the coalition, don't want Labour back, but can't stomach the obvious protest types-I could see the Greens making headway if they were able. but if a prominent known person stood as an independent of some sort, but started planning way in advance...

(and yeah, I know people that knew Fran and Mike, and while I don't know the details it did sound similar to the Exeter situation when the SDP merged in)

But broadly, yes, there was that effort to put Independents forward all over the place last time, but that didn't get anywhere either, the problems Independents have is they mostly come from outside party structures and have no clue how to campaign or build momentum, add that to the squeeze effect and most are doomed. Those that do well tend to do so with party support or from party background (Tatton, Wyre Forest, Blaenau Gwent are the only three I can think of recently).

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 11:13 am (UTC)
rmc28: Rachel smiling against background of trees, with newly-cut short hair (Default)
From: [personal profile] rmc28
Julian's a doctor, but not a medical one :-)

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 09:18 am (UTC)
karohemd: (Devil)
From: [personal profile] karohemd
I love that piece on Wile E Coyote!
Not enough sleep, can't even close tags...
Edited Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 09:18 am (UTC)

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 09:30 am (UTC)
ext_550458: (Clegg checks the omens)
From: [identity profile] strange-complex.livejournal.com
It's a pity for those doctors that we didn't get AV, really. As it is, most people won't feel able to take the risk of voting for them, while those who do will just split the opposition vote. But given that 2/3 of them probably voted against AV last year (assuming that they are roughly representative of the population as a whole), I don't feel terribly sorry for them.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 11:00 am (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
I worry that it's the fact that bystanders don't speak out that lets them think their behaviour is acceptable.

Me too. Interestingly, every time lately that I've spoken out on other people's LJs about this, I've been immediately labeled a troll, and a hater, and all kinds of other delightful things.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 03:42 pm (UTC)
ginasketch: (smug)
From: [personal profile] ginasketch
Yeah I don't understand "don't feed the troll" either- I'm not feeding the troll, I'm trolling it.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 05:59 pm (UTC)
matgb: Artwork of 19th century upper class anarchist, text: MatGB (Default)
From: [personal profile] matgb
I think part of the problem is that people have stopped using the word "troll" to mean "deliberately provocative arsehole looking for an argument and prepared to say stuff they don't necessarily mean" and instead started using it to mean "anyone I disagree with that won't back down", makes it a harder discussion to have.

I've always found engagement without hyperbole normally works better than getting angry as it's getting a rise that they want.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 07:46 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gwenhwyfaer
I think in some cases, it gets used for "someone saying stuff I'm scared of admitting to myself I agree with because it'll raise all kinds of questions about my worldview that I'm desperately trying to avoid having to deal with". Then it gets even more difficult to have a conversation. The accusation also comes up a lot when someone challenges, even mildly, the prevailing groupthink of a place. Especially when they're a bit odd, or awkward, or spiky to start with. But then, I've noticed that there's a very English attitude of "we'll accept you so long as you keep your head down, but the second you step out of line any distinguishing characteristic is fair game".

My own personal maxim is that if anyone calls me a troll, I'm gone. I try never to be anything other than genuine, but if I've been that bad at communicating (which is always possible!), it seems unlikely I'm going to find the magic words to heal the rift... and if, on the other hand, I haven't actually said anything to warrant the accusation, whatever issues the accuser is dealing with are both not my problem and beyond my reach. Either way, there's simply no possibility of a useful continuation of the debate.

(I suppose another way to put that is that I'm ridiculously easy to bully into silence...)

Date: Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 10:57 am (UTC)
hollymath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] hollymath
Absolutely; I was talking about this with Andrew just yesterday. It's like how people who want to be clever are using "problematic" these days; just to mean "something I don't like/agree with" and is intended to shut down further discussion.

Date: Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 06:18 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gwenhwyfaer
Every time I hear the word "problematic", all I can think of is Summer Glau trying to eat a white cake thing on a chain...

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 04:40 pm (UTC)
chess: (Default)
From: [personal profile] chess
It's also a shame they're not standing against Labour MPs, given the masses of NHS privatisation that happened under Labour...

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 06:02 pm (UTC)
po8crg: A cartoon of me, wearing a panama hat (Default)
From: [personal profile] po8crg
I worry about the maxim "don't feed the troll". While it's certainly good advice for the victim

Y'see the problem with this is that "troll" has changed it's meaning since the maxim was coined.

.... wavy lines ....

Once upon a time, there was USEnet. USEnet was an unmoderated discussion forum. Completely unmoderated until 1995, and then only for spam.

People on USEnet would come into a forum and say things that were off-topic, highly controversial, and which resulted in people having big arguments. A common example was gun control.

These were the original trolls, and the right thing to do was ignore them - if you didn't feed the troll, then they went to a different group where people got wound up more easily.

.... wavy lines ....

By the c.1995 definition of "troll", ignoring them worked. It's like the way to treat your local wind-up artist; once you stop getting wound up, they go on to easier prey.

Modern usage, which I haven't really got caught up with, is that troll = personal abuser. To my 1995 mind, that's a flamer, not a troll.

Flamers are a much nastier species than trolls. Not feeding them doesn't really work; they need to be dealt with much more forcefully.

Date: Tuesday, March 20th, 2012 07:52 pm (UTC)
From: [personal profile] gwenhwyfaer
I can't help thinking that far from being a tool to get lots of people from all kinds of diverse backgrounds talking, the internet has ended up as a means of consolidating cliquery and groupthink as never before. You can always find someone who agrees with you to hang out with online; but if you're someone who has a habit of going "hang on a minute" in just about any situation, it's very easy to end up out in the cold, and very hard to find your way back from that.

Date: Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 08:16 am (UTC)
po8crg: A cartoon of me, wearing a panama hat (Default)
From: [personal profile] po8crg
Sorry about the mansplaining. Sometimes I just can't help it.

About This Blog

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
CAB - donate here


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Most Popular Tags