We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Dismiss

Jump to content


Photo

British General Election


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 AlexanderRJ

AlexanderRJ

    Damnant quod non intelligunt

Posted 19 April 2017 - 10:24 PM

 

 

 

The world is not a playground or a game. There are no quick saves or resets; just "relaxing" is not an option. There is a very real chance many of the choices western nations are making at the moment will backfire spectacularly. If nothing else, I'll want to be able to say "I told you so" when my generation of civil servants have to pick up the pieces.

What are you trying to say? The world is indeed not a playground, that is why experiments such as the creation of a political / monetary European union is also very dangerous. There's too many different cultural, linguistic,historical and even economic / financial differences and barriers for it to effectively work beyond a trade union. But likewise, I too firmly believe I can later tell you ''I told you so'' in case this forum still exists a few years from now on. :-P

 

Suuuure. The only difference is my idea is backed by nearly every person with any relevance to the academic fields of political science, economy and international relations, whilst yours is backed by the drunk guy down at the pub and my racist grandma. I think the odds are in my favor. :#

 

Funny as you mention it, I recently went to a conference here (KR) and spoke with the British and Greek Ambassador and they too said an absolute merge, which is desired by many, would be very much impossible given distinct differences...can provide names to you or proof of said conference via PM if you want. :-)

 

We're not talking about an absolute merge at this very moment. I know that wouldn't work either. The EU needs massive reform and cross-country integration needs to be improved immensely before a complete merge would be even close to viable. It's not going to be possible for at least 3 or 4 decades, and that's being optimistic. 

 

We're talking about keeping the EU and reforming it, or destroying it/reverting it to simply a trade union. For Europe to have any chance at geopolitical relevance, we need to overcome them, not trash the whole project and waste 60 years of diplomatic and political progress. 

 

That's where we're going to disagree. We could sit here all day and talk about all the things wrong with the EU, and I'd probably agree with most of your criticisms. I'm not blind to them. Pretty much any criticism directed at the EU which isn't sovereignty-based, I'll probably agree with. It's too slow. Having a monetary union makes absolutely no sense without a fiscal union. The EU has grown too quickly. The EU is terrible at informing the populace of what it's doing; whoever is in charge of marketing should honestly get lynched. The move to Strasbourg is idiotic. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

 

All that doesn't change the good things the EU has brought to Europe. Peace. Stability. Prosperity. If you ask those same ambassadors whether or not being in the EU is a good thing overall, they'll tell you it's much better than the alternative. 


  • 0
capttoshiroh.gif
When life gives you lemons, make grape juice.
2q1rz0h.png

#22 The duck

The duck

    The Community Duck™

  • Posts:16,427
  • Joined:06-April 08
  • RS Name:Elysian Duck
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 19 April 2017 - 11:23 PM

The world is not a playground or a game. There are no quick saves or resets; just "relaxing" is not an option. There is a very real chance many of the choices western nations are making at the moment will backfire spectacularly. If nothing else, I'll want to be able to say "I told you so" when my generation of civil servants have to pick up the pieces.

What are you trying to say? The world is indeed not a playground, that is why experiments such as the creation of a political / monetary European union is also very dangerous. There's too many different cultural, linguistic,historical and even economic / financial differences and barriers for it to effectively work beyond a trade union. But likewise, I too firmly believe I can later tell you ''I told you so'' in case this forum still exists a few years from now on. :-P

Suuuure. The only difference is my idea is backed by nearly every person with any relevance to the academic fields of political science, economy and international relations, whilst yours is backed by the drunk guy down at the pub and my racist grandma. I think the odds are in my favor. :#

Funny as you mention it, I recently went to a conference here (KR) and spoke with the British and Greek Ambassador and they too said an absolute merge, which is desired by many, would be very much impossible given distinct differences...can provide names to you or proof of said conference via PM if you want. :-)

We're not talking about an absolute merge at this very moment. I know that wouldn't work either. The EU needs massive reform and cross-country integration needs to be improved immensely before a complete merge would be even close to viable. It's not going to be possible for at least 3 or 4 decades, and that's being optimistic. 
 
We're talking about keeping the EU and reforming it, or destroying it/reverting it to simply a trade union. For Europe to have any chance at geopolitical relevance, we need to overcome them, not trash the whole project and waste 60 years of diplomatic and political progress. 
 
That's where we're going to disagree. We could sit here all day and talk about all the things wrong with the EU, and I'd probably agree with most of your criticisms. I'm not blind to them. Pretty much any criticism directed at the EU which isn't sovereignty-based, I'll probably agree with. It's too slow. Having a monetary union makes absolutely no sense without a fiscal union. The EU has grown too quickly. The EU is terrible at informing the populace of what it's doing; whoever is in charge of marketing should honestly get lynched. The move to Strasbourg is idiotic. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.
 
All that doesn't change the good things the EU has brought to Europe. Peace. Stability. Prosperity. If you ask those same ambassadors whether or not being in the EU is a good thing overall, they'll tell you it's much better than the alternative.

Agreed with most of your points. But, I wouldn't say peace and stability is only thanks to the formation of the EU. After the devastating first and second world war, I think most Europeans realized, with the help of mass media tools such as newspapers and radio that this should never happen again. Japan, China and Korea have been at each others throats for ages too until the second world war, but I don't see them working together under one umbrella either. But, you can't measure the other scenario of ''what if Europe developed without the EU'', so that will only be speculation. I for one believe Europe should have been able to develop without certain bonds, but perhaps at a different pace altogether.
  • 1

pLiLWr2.png

5y3uOuI.png

Ppj1oVu.jpg

Blogs Team Leader & CL of Questions, feel free to PM me with suggestions or ideas


#23 Matchu

Matchu

    Youngest of the Old

  • Posts:4,676
  • Joined:26-May 02
  • RS Status:Retired
  • Clan:Zchat

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:51 AM

Just what kind of retarded timeline am I living in where a democratic election is received with so much hysterical venom? Eg. https://www.theguard...mps-theresa-may


Some of us don't want to live in a one-party State (regardless of what party is in power). Britain's become a very diverse country, and a strong Opposition is important to ensuring the minority interests are represented. That the current Opposition have been so utterly useless through the crap-show that's been the Conservative government only shows how important that ideal is. Having literally no Opposition will be worse; even if Corbyn goes whoever inherits it is going to have a tough time.

There's no obvious "deputy Opposition" either. The SNP have big mouths, but are limited by their number of seats and the Lib Dems probably need at least a decade before they can become anything more than "the third party" (though I note the smear tactics have already started on Farron).

There's also a bunch of murkier stuff, like:
  • Backtracking on no snap election.
  • Smaller timeframe allows less manifestio scrutiny. People are supposed to vote based on informed choices, not reactively against whatever crisis presents itself.
  • Telling Scotland they can't have a referendum because it'll destabilise the country, but an election is fine. To quote May herself, the country needed a "period of stability to deal with the issues at hand".
  • Sidestepping any issues that arise from the 2018 boundry changes which will lead to a smaller Commons.
  • Ignoring (intentionally or not) the current investigation into several MPs for election expenses in the last General Election.
  • Pushing back the next Election to 2022. A 2020 election would likely have seen a resurgence of anti-Government parties simply due to Brexit fallout. The extra 2 years will allow the Conservatives to stabilise a lot more if issues crop up.
Matchu
  • 3

Posted Image
Original RSC Member Number: 1191.
Official Zybez Chat: ZChat - details here.
The river always finds the sea, so helplessly, like you find me.


#24 The duck

The duck

    The Community Duck™

  • Posts:16,427
  • Joined:06-April 08
  • RS Name:Elysian Duck
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:29 AM

Just what kind of retarded timeline am I living in where a democratic election is received with so much hysterical venom? Eg. https://www.theguard...mps-theresa-may


Some of us don't want to live in a one-party State (regardless of what party is in power). Britain's become a very diverse country, and a strong Opposition is important to ensuring the minority interests are represented. That the current Opposition have been so utterly useless through the crap-show that's been the Conservative government only shows how important that ideal is. Having literally no Opposition will be worse; even if Corbyn goes whoever inherits it is going to have a tough time.

Same in the Netherlands, the Labour party here has been reduced to an all-time low (and for a very good and justified reason..!). But let's be honest now, whose fault is that really? If even the UKIP is doing better among low income voters according to YouGob then that says enough. Labour is just another party cartel that should have been split up in different parties a long time ago to actually represent different demographic groups their interests. (Party cartel? A term coined by a new political star in the Netherlands: https://twitter.com/...5061107310594).

Perhaps it's a great 5de chess move of May but again who is to blame really? Labour failed to properly represent everyone's minority's interests and now faces the consequences. Best you can do is regroup as soon as possible but that would hurt the party cartel and so that will never happen..
  • 1

pLiLWr2.png

5y3uOuI.png

Ppj1oVu.jpg

Blogs Team Leader & CL of Questions, feel free to PM me with suggestions or ideas


#25 Matchu

Matchu

    Youngest of the Old

  • Posts:4,676
  • Joined:26-May 02
  • RS Status:Retired
  • Clan:Zchat

Posted 20 April 2017 - 04:11 PM

Labour is just another party cartel that should have been split up in different parties a long time ago to actually represent different demographic groups their interests. (Party cartel? A term coined by a new political star in the Netherlands: https://twitter.com/...5061107310594).


It's a nice sentiment, but small political parties don't have a hope until Britain reforms its voting system. You mention UKIP, but they only ever managed to get one person elected, who coincidentally resigned today. If Labour fractures, and it's not impossible, you're looking at a long-term one party state. There's this handy Wikipedia graph that demonstrates how ineffective anything beyond the big three are (and really anything beyond Labour/Conservative).

Matchu
  • 1

Posted Image
Original RSC Member Number: 1191.
Official Zybez Chat: ZChat - details here.
The river always finds the sea, so helplessly, like you find me.


#26 The duck

The duck

    The Community Duck™

  • Posts:16,427
  • Joined:06-April 08
  • RS Name:Elysian Duck
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 20 April 2017 - 07:49 PM

Labour is just another party cartel that should have been split up in different parties a long time ago to actually represent different demographic groups their interests. (Party cartel? A term coined by a new political star in the Netherlands: https://twitter.com/...5061107310594).


It's a nice sentiment, but small political parties don't have a hope until Britain reforms its voting system. You mention UKIP, but they only ever managed to get one person elected, who coincidentally resigned today. If Labour fractures, and it's not impossible, you're looking at a long-term one party state. There's this handy Wikipedia graph that demonstrates how ineffective anything beyond the big three are (and really anything beyond Labour/Conservative).

Matchu

UKIP only got 1 person elected because of the way the UK system works. They still got 3m votes.. if labour is falling apart then there is a real chance UKIP is gaining groundstoo.

But again, whose fault is it that Labour is so bad now? Not the ruling party's fault in my opinion. Perhaps it is a low blow to hold an election now, but then again the fact that Labour can't fix itself only further proves they made some pretty big mistakes internally.
  • 0

pLiLWr2.png

5y3uOuI.png

Ppj1oVu.jpg

Blogs Team Leader & CL of Questions, feel free to PM me with suggestions or ideas


#27 Harrу

Harrу

    Member

  • Posts:11,841
  • Joined:20-November 07
  • RS Status:Oldschool
  • Team:Klopp's Reds

Posted 21 April 2017 - 06:01 AM

UKIP only got 1 person elected because of the way the UK system works. They still got 3m votes.. if labour is falling apart then there is a real chance UKIP is gaining groundstoo.

But again, whose fault is it that Labour is so bad now? Not the ruling party's fault in my opinion. Perhaps it is a low blow to hold an election now, but then again the fact that Labour can't fix itself only further proves they made some pretty big mistakes internally.

What attracts you to UKIP? We're leaving the EU now. Everyone of UKIPs very few policies are awful. If UKIP were in charge of Brexit we'd become a tax haven.
  • 0

For information on Reign of Terror's latest fights and outings click here

Posted Image


#28 The duck

The duck

    The Community Duck™

  • Posts:16,427
  • Joined:06-April 08
  • RS Name:Elysian Duck
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 21 April 2017 - 07:53 AM

UKIP only got 1 person elected because of the way the UK system works. They still got 3m votes.. if labour is falling apart then there is a real chance UKIP is gaining groundstoo.

But again, whose fault is it that Labour is so bad now? Not the ruling party's fault in my opinion. Perhaps it is a low blow to hold an election now, but then again the fact that Labour can't fix itself only further proves they made some pretty big mistakes internally.

What attracts you to UKIP? We're leaving the EU now. Everyone of UKIPs very few policies are awful. If UKIP were in charge of Brexit we'd become a tax haven.

I'm not attracted to UKIP, but apparently 3m people were and I can't imagine that has become less given Labour's great performance
  • 0

pLiLWr2.png

5y3uOuI.png

Ppj1oVu.jpg

Blogs Team Leader & CL of Questions, feel free to PM me with suggestions or ideas


#29 Harrу

Harrу

    Member

  • Posts:11,841
  • Joined:20-November 07
  • RS Status:Oldschool
  • Team:Klopp's Reds

Posted 24 April 2017 - 09:10 AM

UKIP only got 1 person elected because of the way the UK system works. They still got 3m votes.. if labour is falling apart then there is a real chance UKIP is gaining groundstoo.

But again, whose fault is it that Labour is so bad now? Not the ruling party's fault in my opinion. Perhaps it is a low blow to hold an election now, but then again the fact that Labour can't fix itself only further proves they made some pretty big mistakes internally.

What attracts you to UKIP? We're leaving the EU now. Everyone of UKIPs very few policies are awful. If UKIP were in charge of Brexit we'd become a tax haven.

I'm not attracted to UKIP, but apparently 3m people were and I can't imagine that has become less given Labour's great performance

You brought them up on this topic when they'll have no baring on the election at all. So i'd wager you do hold some sympathetic views towards them. I have no idea why you decided to bring them up otherwise. You seem to like talking about how bad labour are doing. That is not due to how competent UKIP are at all.

Edited by Harrу, 24 April 2017 - 09:11 AM.

  • 0

For information on Reign of Terror's latest fights and outings click here

Posted Image


#30 The duck

The duck

    The Community Duck™

  • Posts:16,427
  • Joined:06-April 08
  • RS Name:Elysian Duck
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 24 April 2017 - 09:21 AM

UKIP only got 1 person elected because of the way the UK system works. They still got 3m votes.. if labour is falling apart then there is a real chance UKIP is gaining groundstoo.But again, whose fault is it that Labour is so bad now? Not the ruling party's fault in my opinion. Perhaps it is a low blow to hold an election now, but then again the fact that Labour can't fix itself only further proves they made some pretty big mistakes internally.

What attracts you to UKIP? We're leaving the EU now. Everyone of UKIPs very few policies are awful. If UKIP were in charge of Brexit we'd become a tax haven.
I'm not attracted to UKIP, but apparently 3m people were and I can't imagine that has become less given Labour's great performance
You brought them up on this topic when they'll have no baring on the election at all. So i'd wager you do hold some sympathetic views towards them. I have no idea why you decided to bring them up otherwise. You seem to like talking about how bad labour are doing. That is not due to how competent UKIP are at all.
I cannot imagine 3m people magically jump ship Harry..UKIP was only mentioned on this page to showcase that in some resources it did show that UKIP was more popular than Labour. Whether or not that holds true in the election will become reality sooner or later.

Either way Labour has fallen and good luck rebuilding that (I'd imagine that is what you want)
  • 0

pLiLWr2.png

5y3uOuI.png

Ppj1oVu.jpg

Blogs Team Leader & CL of Questions, feel free to PM me with suggestions or ideas


#31 Magick

Magick

    Outrageous

  • Posts:12,566
  • Joined:28-November 08
  • RS Status:Retired

Posted 24 April 2017 - 12:09 PM

You brought them up on this topic when they'll have no baring on the election at all. So i'd wager you do hold some sympathetic views towards them. I have no idea why you decided to bring them up otherwise. You seem to like talking about how bad labour are doing. That is not due to how competent UKIP are at all.

I cannot imagine 3m people magically jump ship Harry..UKIP was only mentioned on this page to showcase that in some resources it did show that UKIP was more popular than Labour. Whether or not that holds true in the election will become reality sooner or later.

Either way Labour has fallen and good luck rebuilding that (I'd imagine that is what you want)

 

UKIP [will] lose many of their support to the Tories because they simply adopt a similar position [e.g. I think that was small part of the reason we had the EU referendum]. From my view, the main thing currently distinguishing them from the Tories is their overt xenophobia/islamphobia. Sure, they will always have some support, but UKIP will never amount to anything, unless the electoral system changes. Hell, they are far behind even the Green party.


  • 0

Posted Image


#32 Murdoc

Murdoc

    *autistic screeching*

Posted 25 April 2017 - 03:48 PM

@ARJ:

 

Meh. I don't see how a (weak) Labour/LibDem coalition would/could negotiate anything remotely better if they got in. None of them want to leave in the first place so is it really a good idea to give them responsibility for it? There are a lot of people who wouldn't trust them to, anyway. It's funny you mentioned healthcare at the start - my dad is a consultant anesthetist and he says that Labour is the worst thing he's ever seen happen to the NHS. I'm not saying the Conservatives will wave a magic wand and fix everything, but he's never voting for anyone else again. 

 

As for this trend of young people becoming increasingly disillusioned with democracy, the vast majority of them that I know (being my age and falling under this category) are such vacuous airheads that it's probably for the best they continue to 'boycott' voting for the time being until they actually grow up lol. Anyway, what would your ideal governmental setup? Platonist philosopher-kings (perhaps headed by yourself?!... haha)?

 

@Matchu:

 

It's the Opposition's own collective fault for so eagerly digging their graves this entire time. Perhaps being crushed under the weight of the electorate will serve as a wake-up call? I honestly never agreed with May's initial pledge regarding not holding a post-Brexit election in the first place. How could you avoid that?

Although the referendum was undoubtedly important, I discovered that it is during these two years that the real decisions will be made.

 
The most important questions have not been answered. Decisions about trade, immigration, sovereignty and our foreign policy are yet to be made. This is why we need an election.
 
Over the next two years, the government will be negotiating the future of our country. It's vital that this negotiation has democratic legitimacy and commands the support of the people. The 2015 General Election manifestos did not include plans for a Britain out of Europe, so the people have endorsed no particular ‘exit plan’. 
 
David Cameron has now announced that he will resign as Prime Minister by October, and so a new Conservative Leader will become our new PM - without the public able to give or withhold their consent at the ballot box. Such a profound change further undermines the Government's already-questionable mandate.

 

 
And screw Sturgeon. Contemptible woman. IndyRef 2 definitely would be an unnecessary distraction. But yeah I agree with some of your other "murky stuff" points. I'm not actually a die-hard Tory don't get me wrong. 

  • 0

mew-lp.png

XabJkFa.png
GuthixUnder-1.png
“People are continually pointing out to me the wretchedness of white people in order to console me for the wretchedness of blacks. But an itemized account of the American failure does not console me and it should not console anyone else. That hundreds of thousands of white people are living, in effect, no better than the "African Americans" is not a fact to be regarded with complacency. The social and moral bankruptcy suggested by this fact is of the bitterest, most terrifying kind.”


#33 AlexanderRJ

AlexanderRJ

    Damnant quod non intelligunt

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:13 PM

 

@ARJ:

 

Meh. I don't see how a (weak) Labour/LibDem coalition would/could negotiate anything remotely better if they got in. None of them want to leave in the first place so is it really a good idea to give them responsibility for it? There are a lot of people who wouldn't trust them to, anyway. It's funny you mentioned healthcare at the start - my dad is a consultant anesthetist and he says that Labour is the worst thing he's ever seen happen to the NHS. I'm not saying the Conservatives will wave a magic wand and fix everything, but he's never voting for anyone else again. 

 

As for this trend of young people becoming increasingly disillusioned with democracy, the vast majority of them that I know (being my age and falling under this category) are such vacuous airheads that it's probably for the best they continue to 'boycott' voting for the time being until they actually grow up lol. Anyway, what would your ideal governmental setup? Platonist philosopher-kings (perhaps headed by yourself?!... haha)?

 

 

I'm not saying a Labour/LibDem coalition would necessarily negotiate a better deal. When the Conservatives gain an absolute majority, there will be no chance for the pro-EU Conservatives to block a bad deal. Now you'll get a hard Brexit, no matter the costs. It won't be pretty if the EU plays hardball, which I'm assuming it will.

 

Beyond that, the Conservatives will basically rule a one-party state. With such a large majority, there will be no need to consider minorities when making decisions. The middle and upper class will be favored, whilst the poor, people of color and other minorities will get shafted. The difference between rich and poor will definitely become larger under a purely Conservative government. 

 

If you think the average 50-something is any more qualified to vote than the average 20-something, you're lying to yourself. Politically, the average person is retarded. That doesn't really change with age. 

 

As for the philosopher-king bit... maybe. For real though, western democracy is stagnating societal growth, other avenues should be explored. It is not only naïve to believe our currently preferred government type is what's going to last throughout all of time, it's downright arrogant, hubristic and goes against everything history has ever taught us. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, and we're currently standing 50 years before the fall of the Roman Empire. The West is practically bathing in its own vain self-importance; it just won't last. Either we break the cycle or we face the consequences. 


  • 0
capttoshiroh.gif
When life gives you lemons, make grape juice.
2q1rz0h.png

#34 The duck

The duck

    The Community Duck™

  • Posts:16,427
  • Joined:06-April 08
  • RS Name:Elysian Duck
  • RS Status:Member

Posted 27 April 2017 - 07:29 PM

As for the philosopher-king bit... maybe. For real though, western democracy is stagnating societal growth, other avenues should be explored. It is not only naïve to believe our currently preferred government type is what's going to last throughout all of time, it's downright arrogant, hubristic and goes against everything history has ever taught us. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, and we're currently standing 50 years before the fall of the Roman Empire. The West is practically bathing in its own vain self-importance; it just won't last. Either we break the cycle or we face the consequences.

So...what do you propose?
  • 0

pLiLWr2.png

5y3uOuI.png

Ppj1oVu.jpg

Blogs Team Leader & CL of Questions, feel free to PM me with suggestions or ideas


#35 AlexanderRJ

AlexanderRJ

    Damnant quod non intelligunt

Posted 27 April 2017 - 09:06 PM

 

As for the philosopher-king bit... maybe. For real though, western democracy is stagnating societal growth, other avenues should be explored. It is not only naïve to believe our currently preferred government type is what's going to last throughout all of time, it's downright arrogant, hubristic and goes against everything history has ever taught us. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes, and we're currently standing 50 years before the fall of the Roman Empire. The West is practically bathing in its own vain self-importance; it just won't last. Either we break the cycle or we face the consequences.

So...what do you propose?

 

I feel like I've proposed the same few things many times over the years.

 

Personally, I'd try a technocratic state with highly centralized power in ministries built up around meritocratic principles. It has the advantage of being run by competent people, who wouldn't need to adjust political trajectory based on the whims of the people. It has problems with accountability, and it would need some sort of nepotism-prevention mechanism built in. It also hasn't been done before.

 

We could try weighted voting. It could potentially promote good behavior, but it would heavily favor certain social groups. This would compound over time, and would probably lead to little more than a glorified plutocracy if it isn't administered properly.

 

Then there is the philosopher-king option, but that has the obvious problem of choosing who is king, making sure he's not a tyrant and never becomes one. It also has a problem with legitimacy, which it shares with all the other options.

 

Democracy is great in the legitimacy department, and it's relatively stable, but it has many flaws. For it to work, it needs the people to be critical and informed, which is never going to happen. People are also drawn to demagogues, so it could always implode. That's what we're seeing the beginning of now, with characters like Le Pen, Wilders, Farage, Orban, Erdogan and Trump showing us how easy it is to lead the people astray by playing on simple fears. 

 

Everything has pros and cons, but we're getting to a point where the cons of democracy are outweighing the pros. If we blindly stick to our current ideals and refuse to adjust, it's going to bite us in the ass, either because we self-destruct through the democratic paradox or because we are overtaken by other nations with different approaches to government. It's also just downright frustrating watching politics get bogged down over even the most basic decisions, like climate change, because democracy has created a culture where every idiot and his mother have an opinion which needs to be heard and taken seriously.


  • 0
capttoshiroh.gif
When life gives you lemons, make grape juice.
2q1rz0h.png




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: