The Labour Party - Part 2

[Tony 10]

 @Anna B No conspiracy, I simply cut and pasted it for you.

[L00b 441]

5 hours ago, Anna B said:

What an interesting and well written response.

Thankyou. It deserves some serious thought.

Do you think PR will help recapture a more democratic centre ground?

You are most welcome, very gracious of you.

 

PR certainly would do that.

 

Because under it, you wouldn't see the Conservatives getting an 80 seat majority with a 37% GE voting tally. Heck, UKIP and maybe even the BNP would get an MP or two, likewise the Communists, the Pirate party and maybe even the Loony Raving Party.

 

Moreover, as witnessed in most other democracies with PR, coalition governments would very shortly become the norm , made up of wider interests than under the long-lived and still current "win-all-then-lose-all" bipartisan system, and instantiating consensual policies negotiated from different viewpoints by default.

 

That is why it will never happen, so long as old and big (and now foreign as well) money continue to call the political shots in the UK.

 

Starmer talks that PR talk, but that's kite-flying to woo some more undecideds (or ex-LibDems), and I can't see him ever walking that walk. I could believe it from the LibDems, because they were never in with a chance of forming their own government: had they been in that "win-all" position of governing without a coalition partner, like the Tories and Labour are by alternance, then I doubt they'd have pushed it further themselves. Politics is all about gaining and then keeping power, through pulling up copious amounts of ladders. Not about surrendering power to alternative parties by dropping down new ladders (like PR would)

 

But  "never" is a long time. You never know. The UK was the sick man of Europe once, and there's good odds Brexit will make the UK that again before long, so I remain hopeful -still- that the peoples of the UK will eventually shake off the apathy with which they've tolerated the sheer extent to which they've been conned for the last 5 years , and will force such changes regardless.

 

Socialism or Conservatism doesn't matter much at all in that context. You can return to that (and modern day variants increasingly involving Greenery) after you've fixed the underlying system, at the constitutional bedrock level   

Edited October 1, 2020 by L00b

[alchresearch 214]

22 hours ago, Anna B said:

Or maybe it's just a rerun of the Railway seat debacle, which was debunked though you probably wouldn't know it from the media.

 

Was it debunked though?

 

Corbyn admitted:

 

Quote

Yes, I did walk through the train.

Yes, I did look for two empty seats together so I could sit down with my wife, to talk to her.

That wasn't possible so I went to the end of the train.

The end of the train where he was was filmed sitting on his own on the floor of the train at the end of a carriage by a Corbyn supporting freelance filmmaker who was working with Corbyn, and volunteers for his campaign.

Edited October 2, 2020 by alchresearch

[Anna B 1,414]

On 01/10/2020 at 21:58, L00b said:

You are most welcome, very gracious of you.

 

PR certainly would do that.

 

Because under it, you wouldn't see the Conservatives getting an 80 seat majority with a 37% GE voting tally. Heck, UKIP and maybe even the BNP would get an MP or two, likewise the Communists, the Pirate party and maybe even the Loony Raving Party.

 

Moreover, as witnessed in most other democracies with PR, coalition governments would very shortly become the norm , made up of wider interests than under the long-lived and still current "win-all-then-lose-all" bipartisan system, and instantiating consensual policies negotiated from different viewpoints by default.

 

That is why it will never happen, so long as old and big (and now foreign as well) money continue to call the political shots in the UK.

 

Starmer talks that PR talk, but that's kite-flying to woo some more undecideds (or ex-LibDems), and I can't see him ever walking that walk. I could believe it from the LibDems, because they were never in with a chance of forming their own government: had they been in that "win-all" position of governing without a coalition partner, like the Tories and Labour are by alternance, then I doubt they'd have pushed it further themselves. Politics is all about gaining and then keeping power, through pulling up copious amounts of ladders. Not about surrendering power to alternative parties by dropping down new ladders (like PR would)

 

But  "never" is a long time. You never know. The UK was the sick man of Europe once, and there's good odds Brexit will make the UK that again before long, so I remain hopeful -still- that the peoples of the UK will eventually shake off the apathy with which they've tolerated the sheer extent to which they've been conned for the last 5 years , and will force such changes regardless.

 

Socialism or Conservatism doesn't matter much at all in that context. You can return to that (and modern day variants increasingly involving Greenery) after you've fixed the underlying system, at the constitutional bedrock level   

I've long been promoting PR as a way forward, but I doubt Starmer's intention of bringing it about, and I certainly doubt his ability to do it. 

 

I think it might just be a stunt to gain him attention or popularity, which might disappear if he gets elected, (I apologise in advance if it turns out I've misjudged him.) As for his ability, it will take the tenacity of a bulldog with a bone in its mouth to make it happen, and he hardly comes across as anyone's idea of a bulldog. 

 

You're right that the politicians in charge will not see it as in their own interest to get it passed, and they will be backed up by centuries of tradition and the entire Establishment so it's unlikely to happen - which begs the question, how do you get anything that favours the electorate rather than the self-serving politicians onto the statute books? 

 

Heaven knows, the whole parliamentary system needs reform, and has done for years. An ideal time to do it would be when they shut the Palace of Westminster down for renovations. IMO we need a modern, state-of-the-art building with modern technology and communications for the 21st century, and a modern streamlined parliamentary system with a decent second house to go along with it.

[tinfoilhat 11]

17 minutes ago, Anna B said:

I've long been promoting PR as a way forward, but I doubt Starmer's intention of bringing it about, and I certainly doubt his ability to do it. 

 

I think it might just be a stunt to gain him attention or popularity, which might disappear if he gets elected, (I apologise in advance if it turns out I've misjudged him.) As for his ability, it will take the tenacity of a bulldog with a bone in its mouth to make it happen, and he hardly comes across as anyone's idea of a bulldog. 

 

You're right that the politicians in charge will not see it as in their own interest to get it passed, and they will be backed up by centuries of tradition and the entire Establishment so it's unlikely to happen - which begs the question, how do you get anything that favours the electorate rather than the self-serving politicians onto the statute books? 

 

Heaven knows, the whole parliamentary system needs reform, and has done for years. An ideal time to do it would be when they shut the Palace of Westminster down for renovations. IMO we need a modern, state-of-the-art building with modern technology and communications for the 21st century, and a modern streamlined parliamentary system with a decent second house to go along with it.

Nobody will bring in PR if they win comfortably with first past the post. 

[Tony 10]

Just give up on PR, it's not happening. 

[Baron99 795]

2 hours ago, Tony said:

Just give up on PR, it's not happening. 

Agree.  I actually voted for it in the last referendum we had but accept their was no call for it with 67,9% voting to keep things as they are.  Maybe another vote in 2031 with another generation of voters?

[Tony 10]

52 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Agree.  I actually voted for it in the last referendum we had but accept their was no call for it with 67,9% voting to keep things as they are.  Maybe another vote in 2031 with another generation of voters?

Perhaps so, although I thought that PR was worth pursuing twenty years ago. I've grown a bit of wool on my back since and don't think it's worth the energy. Today's 20somethings will do the same as they go through life.

[Anna B 1,414]

1 hour ago, Baron99 said:

Agree.  I actually voted for it in the last referendum we had but accept their was no call for it with 67,9% voting to keep things as they are.  Maybe another vote in 2031 with another generation of voters?

Ah, but the vote I think you are referring to wasn't for the PR which was proposed by Nick Clegg, it was for another more complicated system,(can't remember what it was called, might be 'Alternative' vote) which nobody understood or wanted. This was cleverly substituted for PR by the machiavellian David Cameron, knowing it wouldn't win.

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by Anna B

[Baron99 795]

Divisions opening up for Starmer as a large number of Labour's MP's defy him & the Party Whip to abstain in vote on the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (CHIS) Bill.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1348291/keir-starmer-news-latest-labour-party-resign-frontbenchers-quit-MPs-vote-against

 

The issue of the additional resignations don't look good for him.  Same old Labour problems. 

 

Really though,  Asking your MP's to abstain indicates a very wishy-washy, sitting on the fence approach to politics & weakness. 

Edited October 16, 2020 by Baron99

[Mister M 1,625]

......

Edited October 16, 2020 by Mister M
To be kind

[Ridgewalk 101]

One problem with PR it gives parties with miniscule number  of votes disproportionate power, which often means extremists calling the shots eg. Israel, hence undemocratic