The Labour Party - Part 2

[Hotmale 1954 201]

I think what I, and many others are really saying is, there are only two Parties.

Enviromental and Socially minded Party  - Labour, Lib Dem and Green etc,  with profit, power and Dictatorship at the very bottom of their priorities and the other Party where money, the making of money, the keeping of money and the hiding of (their) money is the only real consideration.

Whether people are happy, content or suicidal matters not to the latter.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Hotmale 1954

[sheffbag 227]

23 minutes ago, Hotmale 1954 said:

It's amazing how Right Wingers insist that (usually) around 32 to 35 per cent of the Electorate have the majority vote and therefore, their choice of Party has a  Mandate to run the country. As on Twitter and Facebook, the conversations are always the same. If we're guided by some Cons, some Lab, some Libs and some Greens and they arrive at an acceptable policy, then great. Anyone who doesn't like that criteria must have very serious motives for avoiding it.

It has to be better than one minority Party saying you will work for £8-91 an hour and until you're 70 years old.

There is no fairer system than one man, one vote. If there's 10 of us deciding which pub to go in and 7 say 'A' and 3 say 'B', then we go in A.

If me and 6  others find ourselves in 'B', then we will soon fall out with the other 3.

For numeric purposes, I'll say that 65 to 70 per cent of the Electorate usually don't vote for the Conservatives. Usually. How come, the Tories have been in power for most of the last 50 years?

2019 was a bit of an exception because of the Murdoch Press anti Corbyn campaign, so the percentage voting for Johnson was cosmetically higher. The majority of the country have suffered Conservative rule, rather than have benefitted from it.

 

The reason I, as a Labour supporter am in favour of PR, is because I welcome discussion and disagreement from relevant other viewpoints.

Tories, on the other hand, will not tolerate anyone else's view.

It's domination, or nothing for them.

As said before, Germany's coalition Governments have been far superior to our sorry lot for many years.

They're financially superior, which to me is a secondary consideration, but  they easily have better Social structures and most probably, a more contented population.

 

Given one man, one vote, I'd wager that the  Conservatives would never again be the dominant ruling Party.

That would suit me forever. I dislike their policies with a passion.

Like me, most of the country (as is reflected in the numbers, year after year)  would relish our standards to be  decided by 5 or 6 opinions, that hugely, dislike and even detest the unchallenged standards and policies inflicted on us by the 33%.

Did you have a problem with Blair having 157 seats more than the Tories despite only 800,000 votes (2.8% of total votes) more or just 35.2 of the votes in 2005?

 

Lib dems suffer the most out of not having PR, the regularly polled over 20% of the vote but always end up with small number of seats 

[Guest sibon]

1 minute ago, sheffbag said:

 

Lib dems suffer the most out of not having PR, the regularly polled over 20% of the vote but always end up with small number of seats 

They might poll higher if people thought they had a chance of forming a government.

[the_bloke 17]

1 minute ago, sibon said:

They might poll higher if people thought they had a chance of forming a government.

Yet ironically people stopped voting for them after they were in the coalition government.

[Hotmale 1954 201]

23 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Did you have a problem with Blair having 157 seats more than the Tories despite only 800,000 votes (2.8% of total votes) more or just 35.2 of the votes in 2005?

 

Lib dems suffer the most out of not having PR, the regularly polled over 20% of the vote but always end up with small number of seats 

Yes, I do.  I have a problem with the voting system whoever wins. Your example highlights how wrong the system is.

So it worked for Labour in 2 Elections. Big deal. It was, is and always will be wrong.

Obviously I'm happier if Labour win. Shame 1997 and 2005 was New Labour. A newer, Righter Winger Labour, but still better than the alternative.

Given a choice of the Monster Raving Loony Party and the Tories, I'd go Monster every time. I suspect that they have morals, standards and compassion that the Tories would never consider. Compassion doesn't make money, so it's a no no.

The Libs and Greens have MILLIONS  of supporters in the country.

They have, I think, one MP between them.

That's scandalous.

Only Tories will think it's acceptable (and apparently now, the present Labour MP's).

It's obvious that Labour MP's, in many ways, think differently to Labour supporters.

That's a massive problem that PR would sort in a few days.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Hotmale 1954

[Hotmale 1954 201]

20 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

Yet ironically people stopped voting for them after they were in the coalition government.

Yes, because proper Liberals wanted nothing to do with a Party that aligned themselves to the Party of greed.

If Clegg hadn't taken the Queen's Shilling to raise his own Profile, the Lib Dems would have retained him as Leader and retained the strong support.

The majority of the UK (90% of Scotland and a similar amount in Wales and the majority of NI) dislike the Tories with a passion.

Scotland are more interested in Independence from a Tory run London Government, than merely leaving the UK.

I myself want Independence from a Tory Government.

Independence for Yorkshire (and Scotland, Wales, The North East, The South West, The Midlands, The NW and NI)

Edited October 13, 2021 by Hotmale 1954

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

1 hour ago, Hotmale 1954 said:

Yes, because proper Liberals wanted nothing to do with a Party that aligned themselves to the Party of greed.

 

Point of information: The LDP is not 'Liberals'.

The Liberal Party still is. See https://liberal.org.uk/

[carosio 186]

4 hours ago, Hotmale 1954 said:

I think what I, and many others are really saying is, there are only two Parties.

Enviromental and Socially minded Party  - Labour, Lib Dem and Green etc,  with profit, power and Dictatorship at the very bottom of their priorities and the other Party where money, the making of money, the keeping of money and the hiding of (their) money is the only real consideration.

Whether people are happy, content or suicidal matters not to the latter.

If any of the said parties got into power, I suspect they'd be falling over themselves to grasp from us as much of this 'sordid' money as possible. 

[altus 538]

1 hour ago, CaptainSwing said:

Not 100% sure I've understood you there, but in my preferred version of PR you'd have several members in each constituency, so there'd be several winning candidates, none of whom would probably get as many as half the votes.  Or first preference votes - there'd need to be some kind of transferable vote system, partly to deal with the issue of proliferation of small parties.  I think that this kind of system is used in places like Denmark and Finland, but don't quote me on that.

I was just making the point that our current system discourages people from voting for smaller parties and the proportion of people voting for them is likely to increase under PR since people are more likely to gain a representative in parliament when they do so.

[Anna B 1,401]

6 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Did you have a problem with Blair having 157 seats more than the Tories despite only 800,000 votes (2.8% of total votes) more or just 35.2 of the votes in 2005?

 

Lib dems suffer the most out of not having PR, the regularly polled over 20% of the vote but always end up with small number of seats 

On the other hand the Lib Dems are the king makers in a hung parliament, as has been the case several times. Now though they have to share the vote with several other parties which diminishes their power still further. 

 

Our adversarial system is built for conflict and dissent. I'd like to see all parties working together in the spirit of cooperation to achieve goals in the best interests of the country, however I can't see that ever happening in Great Britain. Does it happen anywhere in the world? Serious question as I haven't time for a serious investigation.  I would think it might happen in some of the Scandinavian countries  which seem to have a handle on most things.  

[Tony 10]

23 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

You don't know what democracy is. Embarrassing.

Aha, I see that you're a fan of introducing an Ekklesia too! I'd start with local authorities and the HoLs and see how it goes before hitting the button for the Commons.

 

 

17 hours ago, sibon said:

They [LibDems] might poll higher if people thought they had a chance of forming a government.

They [LibDems] would poll higher if people thought they could trust them.

 

On topic, the same goes for Labour

Edited October 14, 2021 by Tony

[El Cid 214]

4 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

I see that about 42% of people in the UK are currently in favour of PR, with 30% against and 28% not having an opinion.  The proportions have remained pretty stable since they started collecting the data a couple of years ago:

 

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-we-change-our-current-british-voting-system

 

If you drill down into that, you'll see that people are more likely to favour PR if they're under 50 years of age, of higher socioeconomic status, and don't live in the Midlands.  [Or, in the latest poll, Wales, but I suspect that's just noise.]

New polling shows 83% of Labour members believe the party should support changing the UK's electoral system to proportional representation.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-proportional-representation-corbyn-leader-polls-a9249196.html

 

Two separate polls showing 76% and 83% in favour, that is Labour voters. Perhaps the number in favour might be fewer amonst right wing voters, but if the media were in favour, I believe it would sway 60%+ in favour of PR