Proceedings of the Castle Aching Parish Council, 1905

[Phil Parker]

2 hours ago, Edwardian said:

I'd refer you simply to the examples Maitliss gives in order to illustrate the problem, e.g. it would take 5 minutes to find dozens of economists who thought BREXIT would be a disaster and 5 hours to find one who did not, but the result was one of each was presented to the public as if the facts were truly balanced,

 

In which case, I'm a better journalist than Maitliss. The name you want is Prof Patrick Minford and I found that with 2 minutes of Google use. He's one of 8 who wrote the "Economists for Brexit" report in 2016 and I'm pretty sure that the BBC had the communications team for the Leave campaign on speed-dial, and speed-dial doesn't take 5 hours. The rest is hyperbole.

 

I get the problem that a lot of the time presenting both sides of an argument means you end up with a sensible person, and a loon. The only effective solution is not to try. Stick to only presenting things that are definite (round Earth) and never touch on anything where there is the slightest shred of doubt. Basically, shut down Newsnight and ANY discussion programme.

 

FWIW, I've seen TV in Australia as mentioned earlier, and it's horrible (Canada wasn't any better). But that is the way we are going. It's just one thing on a long list I'm not optomistic about. The BBC will be neutered, and then closed within the next 5 years. It's "replacement" will be, judging from other countries, shoutier and more agressive programmes with longer advert breaks, no pretence at accuracy (see the current tabloid press), basically clickbait.

[Edwardian]

9 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

 

In which case, I'm a better journalist than Maitliss. The name you want is Prof Patrick Minford and I found that with 2 minutes of Google use. He's one of 8 who wrote the "Economists for Brexit" report in 2016 and I'm pretty sure that the BBC had the communications team for the Leave campaign on speed-dial, and speed-dial doesn't take 5 hours. The rest is hyperbole.

 

I get the problem that a lot of the time presenting both sides of an argument means you end up with a sensible person, and a loon. The only effective solution is not to try. Stick to only presenting things that are definite (round Earth) and never touch on anything where there is the slightest shred of doubt. Basically, shut down Newsnight and ANY discussion programme.

 

FWIW, I've seen TV in Australia as mentioned earlier, and it's horrible (Canada wasn't any better). But that is the way we are going. It's just one thing on a long list I'm not optomistic about. The BBC will be neutered, and then closed within the next 5 years. It's "replacement" will be, judging from other countries, shoutier and more agressive programmes with longer advert breaks, no pretence at accuracy (see the current tabloid press), basically clickbait.

 

Much of which is fair comment, and I think you get to a position of not liking the problem or the proposed cure, leading to a pessimistic conclusion that may well be warranted. I certainly fear for the BBC; the knives are already out.

 

In other news .....

 

Triggered by a La Monde editorial, here the gift that god could give us, to see ourselves as others see others, Mr O'Brien is driven to his own pessimistic conclusions on the state of the nation...

 

 

 

Our political classes are fiddling while people burn in the inflation and fuel poverty skip fire that is what's left of our post-BREXIT economy.  Worst and slowest recovery of any G7 country. Poor Marin Lewis nearly blew a gasket on R4 this morning. But don't worry, says HMG, we'll all get 400 quid in October.

 

On a personal note, having survived the economic pressures of the 2008 banking crisis, though for years as economic zombies, and the COVID lock-down, I am not confident I can survive the current crisis. I've just had the first fortnight, first foreign holiday I've had in ... well two decades. It was also the first and last chance to do that with both the kids. It was hard getting there, but I had a real sense that I should do this one indulgent thing before the financial pressures overwhelmed me and dragged me to the bottom. I'm glad I did and I will cling to the memories, but I ain't got much left to look forward to and the stress of keeping my head above water is already feeling unbearable. And there are many, many folk s lot worse off than me.

 

Just give me a government minister I can keep punching for a good 10 minutes after they stop breathing.

 

 

[Edwardian]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

You can always listen to the wireless while making stuff.

 

Better yet, if you work in Downing Street, you can always talk on the wireless while making stuff up.

[Schooner]

Sorry, I didn't manage to get this sent last night but a couple of points still stand, so...

 

TLDR: Read Private Eye, practice a soothing hobby!

 

 

15 hours ago, wagonman said:

...the complaints from the Corbyn camp have been demonstrated to be justified. 

(Assuming we're all on the same page here and referring to the same incident.)

 

Both the Newnight report the Corbyn camp complained about and the response to it are referred to in detail by Maitlis in her talk, linked above. That should cover it, but as we're here:

 

The complaints, IIRC, were lead by regular Guardian columnist Owen Jones:

 

Newsnight was investigated by Channel 4 News.

 

The complaints have been demonstrated to be unjustified.

 

@Edwardian 's observation that the otherwise comprehensive Guardian write-up omits this section of the talk is correct.

 

This, and the fact it does manage to name  Gibb (which the talk omits) in the second sentence, is noteworthy and should be of interest to a readership using The Guardian as their main source for Maitlis' McTaggart Lecture.

 

Where is the false equivalence?

 

Those who have watched/heard the lecture (please do if you've not already. It really is well worth your time) and then read the example Left (Guardian) and Right (Spectator) takes, all posted above, will have seen that it is not possible to have a rational, useful, discussion about the issues raised in the talk if relying on either 'review' alone. Which is rather the point.

 

13 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

OK, what is the "truth" of Brexit?

Is the NHS badly funded or very wasteful of our money?

Are strikers on the railways fighting for a decent wage or workshy trotskiist scumm?

 

There are no answers because they are not questions. Opinions ending in a question mark have no answers. You're absolutely right to highlight the difficulty this causes - it is not possible to debate, let alone reach a conclusion, on issues framed in such a way.

 

The 'truth' of any matter is a mutually agreed position ('the Earth is round') about which statements of predictive utility can be made ('sextants are satnav is a thing').

 

That initial agreement is something sorely missing from nearly all public discourse, particularly political, though we all recognise the approach as an important tool in our working lives, and as a result nothing useful comes of any subsequent 'discussion'.

 

12 hours ago, Phil Parker said:

Perhaps your solution is they just steer clear of anything contentious.

This comes across as unfair. This is not what @Compound2632 said, and ignores one of the major points of the lecture which he picks up: the balance of evidence is an important part of understanding that evidence.

 

This is a critical issue for news outlets claiming to provide a balanced view, and one which 'mainstream media' (sorry, I'll wash my mouth out ASAP) has got wrong in their bid to appear unbiased. An important conclusion of Ayala Panievsky's research, which Maitlis leans on.

 

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

...and in a sense always should be...

Agreed...actually, and this might just be a semantic issue, but shouldn't their *role* always be difficult but their *position* be secure? A national broadcaster should, ideally, be able to keep everyone else in a difficult position!

 

 

11 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I do think though that journalists on the BBC, however senior, have a duty to keep their own opinions out of it, except of course that they must use their own judgement on behalf of the viewer/listener to frame questions

Quite right that exercising professional judgement is not, and must not be, conflated with flexing personal opinion. Journalists are artists, and like actors or musicians must interpret and communicate complex issues without their selves getting in the way. Unlike novelists, singers (lol) or Donald Trump (trololol), they can't just make sh*t up and pass it off as fact, alternative or otherwise. This should be true for all, but particularly a national broadcaster.

 

10 hours ago, Dave John said:

I haven't had a television in the house for the last 25 years, and thus have given sod all to the BBC

Ah, like one of Ofcom's reported 94%* of youngsters who *don't* rely on the BBC TV as their primary source of news, thereby proving Auntie can be put to bed without loss of service to the public...

*it's late and I've not checked this number, sorry

 

...but awkwardly forgetting to mention that a majority *do* rely on the BBC's online news outlets, to which excellent resources they have access free of charge.

 

Making things is undoubtedly the sane choice!

 

Where were we? Is time for an Uplifting Cheer-Up Picture yet?

[Phil Parker]

10 minutes ago, Schooner said:

This comes across as unfair. This is not what @Compound2632 said, and ignores one of the major points of the lecture which he picks up: the balance of evidence is an important part of understanding that evidence.

 

Still shifting sands. All sides will argue about "the evidence", especially as for the sort of discussions Newsnight hosts, will largely be conjecture anyway. You could argue that the BBC should rush off and do a massive amount of research of thier own, but that's not their job, there isn't time in the news cycle, nor does anyone want to pay for it. Even if they did, you can look at climate change, where these is a large amount of scientific agreement, and still find plenty of people who disagree, including many senior politicians who will actually make the decisions.

 

14 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Ah, like one of Ofcom's reported 94%* of youngsters who *don't* rely on the BBC TV as their primary source of news, thereby proving Auntie can be put to bed without loss of service to the public...

*it's late and I've not checked this number, sorry

 

...but awkwardly forgetting to mention that a majority *do* rely on the BBC's online news outlets, to which excellent resources they have access free of charge.

 

I always ask "Where do you get your news from then" in response to this. You may not like the BBC, but is anyone really better informed if they rely on Twitter, YouTube and Tick-Tok? The statement could normally be "I don't want to pay for my news and will accept rubbish if it's free", but that leads me to another grip about people who prefer (free) unboxings to (paid for) well-researched magazine model reviews, so I'll stop now.

[Clearwater]

Isn't this what the philosophers called Logical Positivism?  My philosophy is a bit rusty these days but the thing that stuck with me, and is the basis of scientific "fact", that a conjecture can disprove an existing theory and that conjecture holds until someone finds a hole in that argument.  An example being Einstein's theory of relativity disproving previous theories of the universe.  

 

I think PPE'ists spend hours in philosophy tutorials arguing exactly this type of point as to "what is truth?"

 

[Compound2632]

18 minutes ago, Phil Parker said:

Even if they did, you can look at climate change, where these is a large amount of scientific agreement, and still find plenty of people who disagree, including many senior politicians who will actually make the decisions.

 

That is, for me, the nub of the problem. We live in a society where it is considered acceptable to make significant decisions in despite of the evidence.

[Compound2632]

36 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

I think PPE'ists spend hours in philosophy tutorials arguing exactly this type of point as to "what is truth?"

 

Not in my experience. I confess my experience of PPEists is from nearly forty years ago now but I doubt they've changed much. They were not to the most earnest bunch - at least that's how it seemed to physicists spending hours arguing over the Copenhagen interpretation... 

 

(Not in tutorials, which were about doing the maths for a given set of boundary conditions.)

Edited August 26, 2022 by Compound2632

[Edwardian]

50 minutes ago, Schooner said:

Sorry, I didn't manage to get this sent last night but a couple of points still stand, so...

 

TLDR: Read Private Eye, practice a soothing hobby!

 

 

(Assuming we're all on the same page here and referring to the same incident.)

 

Both the Newnight report the Corbyn camp complained about and the response to it are referred to in detail by Maitlis in her talk, linked above. That should cover it, but as we're here:

 

The complaints, IIRC, were lead by regular Guardian columnist Owen Jones:

 

Newsnight was investigated by Channel 4 News.

 

The complaints have been demonstrated to be unjustified.

 

@Edwardian 's observation that the otherwise comprehensive Guardian write-up omits this section of the talk is correct.

 

This, and the fact it does manage to name  Gibb (which the talk omits) in the second sentence, is noteworthy and should be of interest to a readership using The Guardian as their main source for Maitlis' McTaggart Lecture.

 

Where is the false equivalence?

 

Those who have watched/heard the lecture (please do if you've not already. It really is well worth your time) and then read the example Left (Guardian) and Right (Spectator) takes, all posted above, will have seen that it is not possible to have a rational, useful, discussion about the issues raised in the talk if relying on either 'review' alone. Which is rather the point.

 

There are no answers because they are not questions. Opinions ending in a question mark have no answers. You're absolutely right to highlight the difficulty this causes - it is not possible to debate, let alone reach a conclusion, on issues framed in such a way.

 

The 'truth' of any matter is a mutually agreed position ('the Earth is round') about which statements of predictive utility can be made ('sextants are satnav is a thing').

 

That initial agreement is something sorely missing from nearly all public discourse, particularly political, though we all recognise the approach as an important tool in our working lives, and as a result nothing useful comes of any subsequent 'discussion'.

 

This comes across as unfair. This is not what @Compound2632 said, and ignores one of the major points of the lecture which he picks up: the balance of evidence is an important part of understanding that evidence.

 

This is a critical issue for news outlets claiming to provide a balanced view, and one which 'mainstream media' (sorry, I'll wash my mouth out ASAP) has got wrong in their bid to appear unbiased. An important conclusion of Ayala Panievsky's research, which Maitlis leans on.

 

Agreed...actually, and this might just be a semantic issue, but shouldn't their *role* always be difficult but their *position* be secure? A national broadcaster should, ideally, be able to keep everyone else in a difficult position!

 

 

Quite right that exercising professional judgement is not, and must not be, conflated with flexing personal opinion. Journalists are artists, and like actors or musicians must interpret and communicate complex issues without their selves getting in the way. Unlike novelists, singers (lol) or Donald Trump (trololol), they can't just make sh*t up and pass it off as fact, alternative or otherwise. This should be true for all, but particularly a national broadcaster.

 

Ah, like one of Ofcom's reported 94%* of youngsters who *don't* rely on the BBC TV as their primary source of news, thereby proving Auntie can be put to bed without loss of service to the public...

*it's late and I've not checked this number, sorry

 

...but awkwardly forgetting to mention that a majority *do* rely on the BBC's online news outlets, to which excellent resources they have access free of charge.

 

Making things is undoubtedly the sane choice!

 

Where were we? Is time for an Uplifting Cheer-Up Picture yet?

 

Agree and thanks.

 

Owen Jones I have long since dismissed as no better than those "professional controversialists" of the Right who should not be given the oxygen of publicity, or, perhaps, just oxygen. He is the person the word "gobsh1te" could have been invented for. 

[Clearwater]

35 minutes ago, Compound2632 said:

 

Not in my experience. I confess my experience of PPEists is from nearly forty years ago now but I doubt they've changed much. They were not to the most earnest bunch - at least that's how it seemed to physicists spending hours arguing over the Copenhagen interpretation... 

 

(Not in tutorials, which were about doing the maths for a given set of boundary conditions.)

 

I know what you mean... I did a term of history and philosophy of science which was eye opening (got me out of a term of chemistry lab work).  We had an extremely able philosophy tutor and after having every single argument comprehensively shredded at our first two tutorials, my partner and I then started to meet the day before to prepare our arguments.  We fared a little better but still lost.   There are/were over courses, other than PPE, that included philosophy.  Psychology, physiology and Philosophy and there was a Physics and Philosophy joint honours course. 

 

I think to survive a PPE degree, you have to learn how to argue that the proverbial black is white.  It is, as @Edwardian points out good training for being a gobsxxte.  I agree a completely different experience to reading science!

[ardbealach]

I think much of the problem today is that, as a society, we have become totally polarised politically.  I am old enough to have voted back in the Sixties when the main parties fought for the centre ground.  At the last general election the fight was over the polarised extremes of Corbyn and ERG / UKIP, and it did not address the needs of those in the political centre ground.  There was nothing on the ballot paper at that last election for the average centrist voter like myself to make a mark, unless it was to produce a spoilt ballot paper.

 

The BBC has been caught in the middle of the polarisation, a place in which it is impossible to serve two extreme masters.    I have to say that I do not follow

any television news, or tv current affairs programmes, but rely on the written word of the broadsheets [and Private Eye]  for my news. And it is certainly not the right wing press, such as the Torygraph and Mail.  This  has allowed me to decide what I want to take in for my news, and  what I wish to ignore.  I have no wish to be force fed my news direct from my television screen.  

 

I am sure that there are many political centrists, both left and right, who would welcome a voice somewhere in the middle of the present political extremes right now.  Sadly given what is now unfolding before us in the Tory hustings, I fear the polarisation has a few miles to run yet.   The start of the end might happen when the reality of the promised "sunny uplands" hoped for by the 52 percenters has turned out to be somewhat less than what was said on the side of the red electioneering Brexit bus.   [Alisdair]

 

 

[ardbealach]

Oh and I should have added that I get my news from certain presenters from LBC - especially James O'Brien. [Alisdair]

[Edwardian]

3 minutes ago, ardbealach said:

I think much of the problem today is that, as a society, we have become totally polarised politically.  I am old enough to have voted back in the Sixties when the main parties fought for the centre ground.  At the last general election the fight was over the polarised extremes of Corbyn and ERG / UKIP, and it did not address the needs of those in the political centre ground.  There was nothing on the ballot paper at that last election for the average centrist voter like myself to make a mark, unless it was to produce a spoilt ballot paper.

 

The BBC has been caught in the middle of the polarisation, a place in which it is impossible to serve two extreme masters.    I have to say that I do not follow

any television news, or tv current affairs programmes, but rely on the written word of the broadsheets [and Private Eye]  for my news. And it is certainly not the right wing press, such as the Torygraph and Mail.  This  has allowed me to decide what I want to take in for my news, and  what I wish to ignore.  I have no wish to be force fed my news direct from my television screen.  

 

I am sure that there are many political centrists, both left and right, who would welcome a voice somewhere in the middle of the present political extremes right now.  Sadly given what is now unfolding before us in the Tory hustings, I fear the polarisation has a few miles to run yet.   The start of the end might happen when the reality of the promised "sunny uplands" hoped for by the 52 percenters has turned out to be somewhat less than what was said on the side of the red electioneering Brexit bus.   [Alisdair]

 

 

 

The problem is, I think, that the centrists are split between the three largest parties (in England) so I do not see the current two party system as capable of bringing an end to popularism and returning to mature and reasonable politics. 

[Clearwater]

42 minutes ago, Edwardian said:

 

The problem is, I think, that the centrists are split between the three largest parties (in England) so I do not see the current two party system as capable of bringing an end to popularism and returning to mature and reasonable politics. 

 

I think you're right that centrists are split across some historic groupings around the three main parties.  However, I think there's also an aspect that many of those people come from very different places in terms of class (even in this day and age) and that informs which of those buckets they sit in as much as a cold analysis of political views.

[Edwardian]

7 minutes ago, Clearwater said:

 

I think you're right that centrists are split across some historic groupings around the three main parties.  However, I think there's also an aspect that many of those people come from very different places in terms of class (even in this day and age) and that informs which of those buckets they sit in as much as a cold analysis of political views.

 

Yes, which is exactly why I am concerned about tribalism. That has to be overcome first. If I had a pound for every Labour support I have come across with whom I can agree on about 90-95% of policy stuff, but who will always deny the legitimacy and good faith of anyone in another party and who wilfully ignores the problems represented by the Hard Left or Trades Union dominance, then I'd have enough money to pay an electricity bill.

 

I got to know a lovely chap a week or two ago, really decent and sensible and very well informed, who made perfect sense until the moment the party line took over, "there's no such thing as a centrist Tory", I overheard him insist to someone. Having met quite a few of these, I know they exist, but it was like a switch had been tripped and a shutter had come down in his mind.

 

This kind of nonsense artificially divides people who have more in common in policy terms with counterparts in other parties than they do with the extremes of their own parties. 

[Clearwater]

Yes - tribalism is both good and bad.  Not just the trend to extremism but also the idea that no-one else can possibly be right and you wrong.  Seen on the dogmatic left and dogmatic right.  If you dare disagree with the hard left in Labour, "you're just a closet Tory" and the purity spiral is immense.  Its the same on the right where you nuance and disagreement sees you dismissed as being in league with the devil.  

[wagonman]

There is a lot of loose talk about the Hard Left as if it were a major force instead of merely a handful of sour faced tankies who call themselves TUSC. If you are, like the gutter press, trying to tar Corbyn and his ilk with that brush then you really do need to take a hard look at your preconceptions and prejudices. In reality they are mainstream Democratic Socialists of the kind that have been running most of Scandinavia for decades. But because the Overton Window has been pushed so far to the right they seem like ravening Bolsheviks to the uninformed. Yet many of Labour's policies in the 2017 Manifesto – such as the idea that essential utility services should be in public ownership – were and are popular across much of the political spectrum.

 

'Reasonable Tories' do still exist though I can't see any in the Parliamentary party since Johnson purged them all. What's left is the lunatic fringe of right wing libertarians and Ultras who seem to want to recreate the glory days of the British Empire c1890 when free-booting capitalists were free to exploit their workers, customers and the environment without let or hindrance. Part of that process is that they 'shrink the state' – but as we are seeing, a shrunken state is a barely functioning state. Everything from the Health Service to the Passport Office, Justice to Culture, is falling apart as a direct consequence of Tory government policy since 2010. There has in that time been a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. No government, whether of the Left, the Centre or the Right can hope to solve the country's problems without redressing that imbalance for starters.

 

I've been voting since the '60s, from a time when the (pragmatic, One-Nation, mostly non-corrupt) Tory Party was the Opposition rather than the Enemy it now is. But, come the next election I will be voting LibDem as usual.

 

 

[Edwardian]

50 minutes ago, wagonman said:

There is a lot of loose talk about the Hard Left as if it were a major force

 

 

Err, last Labour leader?

 

50 minutes ago, wagonman said:

instead of merely a handful of sour faced tankies who call themselves TUSC. If you are, like the gutter press, trying to tar Corbyn and his ilk with that brush

 

 

Yes, I'm sure he was merely present, and not involved.

 

50 minutes ago, wagonman said:

then you really do need to take a hard look at your preconceptions and prejudices. In reality they are mainstream Democratic Socialists of the kind that have been running most of Scandinavia for decades. But because the Overton Window has been pushed so far to the right they seem like ravening Bolsheviks to the uninformed. Yet many of Labour's policies in the 2017 Manifesto – such as the idea that essential utility services should be in public ownership – were and are popular across much of the political spectrum.

 

I think for me it's more a concern about rule by the Commissars; having seen how his fan-base behaved within the party, they may as well have been Bolsheviks. And the Magical Thinking was a species of populism.

 

50 minutes ago, wagonman said:

'Reasonable Tories' do still exist though I can't see any in the Parliamentary party since Johnson purged them all.

 

 

No, or they're in hiding! Hard nowadays to imagine a Conservative party that a principled person of intelligence could co-operate with, so far has it fallen from the One Nation tree.

 

50 minutes ago, wagonman said:

What's left is the lunatic fringe of right wing libertarians and Ultras who seem to want to recreate the glory days of the British Empire c1890 when free-booting capitalists were free to exploit their workers, customers and the environment without let or hindrance. Part of that process is that they 'shrink the state' – but as we are seeing, a shrunken state is a barely functioning state. Everything from the Health Service to the Passport Office, Justice to Culture, is falling apart as a direct consequence of Tory government policy since 2010. There has in that time been a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. No government, whether of the Left, the Centre or the Right can hope to solve the country's problems without redressing that imbalance for starters.

 

100% with you on all of the above. let's takeover the country 😉

 

50 minutes ago, wagonman said:

 

I've been voting since the '60s, from a time when the (pragmatic, One-Nation, mostly non-corrupt) Tory Party was the Opposition rather than the Enemy it now is. But, come the next election I will be voting LibDem as usual.

 

 

 

Hear hear!

[Andy Hayter]

12 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

 

PS: I’m not entirely sure I’d know what to do with 3500 sheets of very thin plasticard.

 

 

Cut it up into scale 4" x 6" pieces, stack them together and build yourself an Izal packing and distribution shed.   😁

[Hroth]

1 hour ago, Edwardian said:

100% with you on all of the above. let's takeover the country

 

Long live the West Norfolk Freedom Fighters!

Power to the People!!!

 

In the real world, it doesn't matter who I vote for, its a Labour fiefdom, so its a choice between the Greens and the LibDems only so I can say "I voted and it wasn't for the Conservatives (reasonable or not) and I didn't boost Keir Hardys Starmers ego, so don't blame me!".

 

 

 

[Schooner]

32 minutes ago, Hroth said:

...it doesn't matter who I vote for...

 

Yes. Yes it does matter.

 

Whether your choice wins enough votes to be elected to office or not, doesn't matter.

 

That you vote for your choice matters.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

If, as would appear, the members of the Parish Council are United in their wish to see the back of Tory mis-rule, then the logical thing for each of us to do is vote tactically, choosing the not-Tory party most likely to win in our local seat. That might involve several of us “holding our noses” as the phrase goes, but it is the sort of thing that, if every not-Tory voter did it, might result in a Lib-Lab coalition coming to power.

 

That’s certainly what I shall do if/when we are allowed to vote again.

[Caley Jim]

To vote for the 'Not-tory' party most likely to win here would mean voting for the S** and no amount of nose-holding would allow me to do that!

 

Jim

[Schooner]

I'm about to say something incredibly stupid...

 

...but...

 

...what happened to voting for the candidate we think best able to represent us in Parliament?

[Nearholmer]

It’s a matter of how closely they represent our views/interests.

 

Someone who 50% fits my ideal, and gets elected, would do me far better than someone who represents my views <5% (there must be some small thing I’d agree with a Tory about) who gets elected, or someone who fits my ideal 75% who doesn’t get elected.

 

I wouldn’t vote for someone not-Tory who was even less to my tastes than a Tory, which seems to be what Jim is also saying, if I read him right, but luckily I don’t think we are likely to be presented with candidates with a winning chance who fit that description.