The Labour Party - Part 2

[apelike 10]

On 15/03/2021 at 19:01, Anna B said:

The politicians, the police, and the courts of course. The public won't have a say.

The public have never had a say and that is the reason why we call it representative democracy.

 

[Anna B 1,401]

20 minutes ago, apelike said:

The public have never had a say and that is the reason why we call it representative democracy.

 

That's why there are demonstations going on. People want to be heard. 

 

A tick in a box for a pre-selected candidate once every 5 years is not representative democracy.

[apelike 10]

6 minutes ago, Anna B said:

That's why there are demonstations going on. People want to be heard. 

That's fine, providing they do it peacefully and don't resort to rioting.

 

6 minutes ago, Anna B said:

A tick in a box for a pre-selected candidate once every 5 years is not representative democracy.

Just because as a socialist you don't like the way it works does not mean its not a representative democracy as you have a number of options available to try and change it.

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

On 15/03/2021 at 19:01, Anna B said:

The politicians, the police, and the courts of course. The public won't have a say.

And also remember the law courts are now well outside the pockets of the ordinary working man. He can no longer afford Justice. 

That's clearly not accurate.

 

Anyone can bring a claim to court if they so wish to do so. Court fees are universal and if a claim has sufficient merit anyone can present before the judge.  Whether the judge necessarily swings in their favour is a whole different matter.

 

If you are talking about legal fees i.e. fees charged by lawyers - they require years of training and education to provide correct advice and representation in very complex issues.  Those services come with a fee and with cases running into years....of course it's going to be expensive.

 

However, let's not try and portray the working man as being completely left out. There has been plenty of well-publicised challenges against the government brought by so-called "Justice organisations" more than happy to fund the fight for those so-called hard done by working men.   Both here and over the pond there has been a flurry of interest,  campaigning, activism, celebrity endorsements and general hysteria racking up to hundreds of thousands in support of various legal challenges and attempts to overthrow political decisions or even the government entirely.  Those champions of the Labour party, the trade unions are regularly more than happy to flash their members' cash allegedly doing good chucking in any legal challenges they seem fit......

 

Let's not try and oversimplify things with some ridiculous David vs Goliath portrail. Legal challenges work both ways.

Edited March 22, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[El Cid 210]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

That's fine, providing they do it peacefully and don't resort to rioting.

Is even peaceful protesting allowed? Is that where the violence started?

[Anna B 1,401]

2 hours ago, apelike said:

That's fine, providing they do it peacefully and don't resort to rioting.

 

Just because as a socialist you don't like the way it works does not mean its not a representative democracy as you have a number of options available to try and change it.

How?

 

And don't forget a government can get elected with barely a third of the vote, so not necessarily representative of the majority. The system needs to change.

 

And what's to stop the powers that be from putting 'agent provocateurs' into peaceful demonstrations it doesn't like or finds embarrassing. It's happened before.

 

 

[apelike 10]

32 minutes ago, Anna B said:

How?

One way is by getting your Labour party to do something to help that along.

 

Quote

And don't forget a government can get elected with barely a third of the vote, so not necessarily representative of the majority. The system needs to change.

But just as in the referendum it's the voters that take part that determine the outcome. As you know our elections are based on the number of seats gained and any party needs 326 seats to win and that is how it works. In 2019 the Conservatives got 365 and Labour 202.

 

Quote

And what's to stop the powers that be from putting 'agent provocateurs' into peaceful demonstrations it doesn't like or finds embarrassing. It's happened before.

That may or may not happen regardless and I not sure that it has happened before.

Edited March 22, 2021 by apelike

[sheffbag 224]

On 22/03/2021 at 20:14, Anna B said:

And don't forget a government can get elected with barely a third of the vote, so not necessarily representative of the majority. The system needs to change.

 

 

Ive got an idea. Lets split the country up into regions and regularly give every adult the opportunity to vote for whoever they want to represent their area. Its up to the adults then to vote and the people who win the most of these regions wins.

 

Or for one off votes, such as, say a referendum, we give everyone the vote and group them all together and the one with the most, wins

 

Sounds fairly fair to me, what's your alternative?
 

Edited March 24, 2021 by sheffbag

[Anna B 1,401]

4 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Ive got an idea. Lets split the country up into regions and regularly give every adult the opportunity to vote for whoever they want to represent their area. Its up to the adults then to vote and the people who win the most of these regions wins.

 

Or for one off votes, such as, say a referendum, we give everyone the vote and group them all together and the one with the most, wins

 

Sounds fairly fair to me, what's your alternative?
 

Proportional Representation.

Not perfect, but better, as the parties split and the number of parties grow.

 

And no, we haven't had a vote for PR already in 2011, mooted by the Liberal Democrats.  

That was for AV, the Alternative Vote, a deliberate Tory muddying of the water by David Cameron that no one understood or wanted.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Anna B

[sheffbag 224]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Proportional Representation.

Not perfect, but better, as the parties split and the number of parties grow.

 

And no, we haven't had a vote for PR already in 2011, mooted by the Liberal Democrats.  

That was for AV, the Alternative Vote, a deliberate Tory muddying of the water by David Cameron that no one understood or wanted.

now how did i know you would suggest that so...

 

2019 GE result by proportional rep. Based on the 30848002 votes cast for the parties that won seats this equates to 47458 votes per seat

this gives the following results

Conservative - 13,941,086 - 293 seats (364 in GE)

Labour - 10, 292,354 - 216 (203)

Lib Dem - 3,675,342 - 77 (11)

SNP - 1,242,380 - 26 (48)

Green  - 864,743 - 18 (1)

DUP - 244,127 - 5 (8)

SF - 181,853 - 4 (7)

PC - 153,265 - 3 (4)

Alliance - 134,115 - 3 (1)

SDIP - 118,737 - 2 (2)

 

So we get a non majority parliament , even in 1997 when Labour won 418 seats and the Conservatives and Lib dem got 211 between them then PR would have resulted in a hung parliament as Labour only got 43% of the vote . since 1900 there has only been 2 times when there has been a majority vote for any party at any GE. The only times there were was in the 30's  both had majorities for the National party. The only real winners are the Lib Dem but the questions are

 

I vote for my member of parliament, if that person under PR wins the most votes in my area but isn't represented in parliament  (such as any of the 71 seats the conservatives would lose under PR)why should I be represented by a person who doesn't represent the wishes and votes of my constituency.

 

If the PR vote is just a straight vote for the party and then they will pick the MP to represent you then who chooses the MP and which areas do those MPs go to based on splitting the constituencies up. For example, Who gets the seats that the tories lose in order to bring the lib dem count up?

 

If i am in Scotland and voted SNP then 22 MPs to represent me have just been lost and always will be due to the number of votes available in Scotland (and Wales/Ireland) in comparison to england. Who represents the voters for these areas in parliament? 

 

PR essentially dismisses local politics and becomes a national vote with no assurance that the person selected will represent the area you are from correctly (would you put a Labour MP in the middle of the Tory heartland or Scotland?)

 

It dismisses the smaller constituencies in favour of ones with larger voting capability. A potential vote cast in Orkney (electorate 34211) is worth one third of a potential vote cast in the Isle of Wight (electorate 113021). source https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8749/  Both are islands and at present both woudl have an MP based on the decision of the people who live there and woudl support the people who live there. PR woudl mean that 74442 people who did vote in IOW would have a 75% influence over the 23160 who voted in Orkney. How is that fair to the people of Orkney?

 

So how is this better than voting for a person to represent your area in parliament and then finding out that you get someone else because more people turned out in a different constituency?

Edited March 24, 2021 by sheffbag

[El Cid 210]

3 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

I vote for my member of parliament, if that person under PR wins the most votes in my area but isn't represented in parliament  (such as any of the 71 seats the conservatives would lose under PR)why should I be represented by a person who doesn't represent the wishes and votes of my constituency.

I have councillors that dont live in my area and they pay a different local authorities council tax. That is much worse than an MP that could live anywhere in the country. MPs do often have homes in London and then a home nearer their constituency.

[sheffbag 224]

9 minutes ago, El Cid said:

I have councillors that dont live in my area and they pay a different local authorities council tax. That is much worse than an MP that could live anywhere in the country. MPs do often have homes in London and then a home nearer their constituency.

with respect , that has nothing to do with the point.  Councillors are not MPs and do not make national decisions. However,  a councillor will be the person that the people in your area voted for in an election and therefore are the chosen representative for the (normally) politcal affiliation of the area. Under PR this may not be the case, that is the point im making