Jump to content

The Labour Party - Part 2

Vaati

People who get personal with any further attacks in the thread will be suspended. As will any individuals using wording like Smarmer instead of Starmer etc.

Message added by Vaati

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

If you want to know how smoothly PR works, pay attention to the current condition of German government. Three weeks after the election and still no government has been formed. Lots of back room deals going on, and the result will likely be a three way coalition of parties that will struggle to push any policy through from their manifesto without compromise.

 

It's democracy yes, but in a way that no one gets what they voted for.

Is three weeks a long time when it comes to forming a Government?

Germany has a strong economy and seems well run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

Antidemocratic? Utter nonsense. It's the total opposite.

How so? As ably expressed above the current situation in Germany is a perfect example of why PR is a one way trip to poor democracy. 

 

In the UK, parties stand on manifestos and in government they impose their manifesto pledges, notwithstanding unexpected severe shocks. Coalitions invariably have to compromise and voters don't get what they voted for. Rather, an antidemocratic cabal cooks up a technocratic solution that year by year removes the link between voters and elected representatives and replaces it with ever-stronger links with industry / unions / whoever can afford to lobby hardest. 

 

FPTP is not perfect but the alternatives are worse.

 

The only people who love PR are the ones who can't find enough supporters to get theri ideas implemented. I'd say that's more to do with their usually self-serving and quite bonkers ideas than it is to do with the voting system

. They simply can't take the hint that their ideas are continually rejected because they are rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, the_bloke said:

If you want to know how smoothly PR works, pay attention to the current condition of German government. Three weeks after the election and still no government has been formed. Lots of back room deals going on, and the result will likely be a three way coalition of parties that will struggle to push any policy through from their manifesto without compromise.

 

It's democracy yes, but in a way that no one gets what they voted for.

Well, Germany has been just sooo poorly governed through decades of PR, really.

 

 Can’t imagine how their economy is so consistently strong, how people there are reasonably happy and well-educated, how the far right like AfD are sinking in polls. I’m completely befuddled. 
 

So, err, Johnson’s been in power nearly a year now, with a vast majority…

 

…are you getting what you voted for?

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, L00b said:

Well, Germany has been just sooo poorly governed through decades of PR, really.

 

 Can’t imagine how their economy is so consistently strong, how people there are reasonably happy and well-educated, how the far right like AfD are sinking in polls. I’m completely befuddled. 
 

So, err, Johnson’s been in power nearly a year now, with a vast majority…

 

…are you getting what you voted for?

You've avoided the point; if a party says one thing in the manifesto then can't deliver it or can only deliver a sub set of it due to various levels of compromise, then people aren't getting what they voted for are they. If people feel strongly about that, they can make sure to vote for someone else in the next election and remove the party that promised one thing and delivered another from power - unless it's PR, where the same parties are always involved in the decisions for decades.

 

PR is basically governing by committee. The safest options will always be taken due to the compromises and deal making that has to be done. IMO if this country had PR since 1945 none of the large scale political decisions and social and economic changes would ever have happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

You've avoided the point; if a party says one thing in the manifesto then can't deliver it or can only deliver a sub set of it due to various levels of compromise, then people aren't getting what they voted for are they. If people feel strongly about that, they can make sure to vote for someone else in the next election and remove the party that promised one thing and delivered another from power - unless it's PR, where the same parties are always involved in the decisions for decades.

I doubt that.
 

You’re arguing in support of the binary, absolutist, winner-takes-all politics brought about by FPTP systems.

 

I’m looking at where this system has taken British politics and Britain, up to now. 

 

And inviting a contrast with where PR has taken Germany up to now. Country size for country size, it’s a good example.
 

And speaking of 1945, it was a ruin from one end of the country to the other, cut in ideological halves, without any sort of governance or electoral system, no industry, a class of age or two worse than decimated, and about as much geopolitical goodwill as a black hole.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On balance I would prefer a PR system.

They can work at least as well as our FPTP and I see no problem at all in a minority party having a meaningful say in Parliament.

Just because they do not command a higher percentage of the vote does not mean that some of their views or policies have no relevance.

The 2 main parties may have a manifesto but it is clear that any issue that gets that far is not always backed in total by their own members.

There is always a range of views and a moderating influence is often to be welcomed.

I have long wished that there could be some cross party consensus on a number of critical issues,but the norm is to try to defeat the opposition or to hinder progress at every turn and by whatever means.

Some reform would be welcome,including a substantial reduction in the number of MPs and of course a more credible representation in the House of Lords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, L00b said:

You’re arguing in support of the binary, absolutist, winner-takes-all politics brought about by FPTP systems.

Yes, I am. If you want to compare Germany and the UK, please enlighten us as to the amazing things PR has brought to Germany that FPTP wouldn't have done? I can't see any, but then I'm not a Europhile and don't know the system in and out.

 

It didn't stop recessions. It didn't stop involvement in Afghanistan. It didn't stop militants committing murder with lorries. It doesn't stop policy u-turns, as evidenced by the flip flopping over ending nuclear power. It didn't stop tension over immigration. It didn't stop them bailing out the banks. It doesn't actually mean that the parties work better with each other either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

Yes, I am. If you want to compare Germany and the UK, please enlighten us as to the amazing things PR has brought to Germany that FPTP wouldn't have done? I can't see any, but then I'm not a Europhile and don't know the system in and out.

 

It didn't stop recessions. It didn't stop involvement in Afghanistan. It didn't stop militants committing murder with lorries. It doesn't stop policy u-turns, as evidenced by the flip flopping over ending nuclear power. It didn't stop tension over immigration. It didn't stop them bailing out the banks. It doesn't actually mean that the parties work better with each other either.

The thing that PR does, is it allows small political parties to grow. So instead of 2 powerfull partys ruling the country, PR allows new MPs to be elected.

PR should also be brought in at a local level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

It didn't stop recessions. It didn't stop involvement in Afghanistan. It didn't stop militants committing murder with lorries. It doesn't stop policy u-turns, as evidenced by the flip flopping over ending nuclear power. It didn't stop tension over immigration. It didn't stop them bailing out the banks.

Neither did FPTP, nor various forms of PR. Nor dictatorship, if you look at Zimbabwe or China. PR is not a panacea for mitigating geopolitical forces and global events.

 

But Germany’s involvement in Afghanistan was quite light (syndicated minimum under NATO obligations; significantly less than eg France), Germany decided against domestic nuclear and to buy French electricity instead decades ago, Germany took in well in excess of 1m refugees a mere 6 years ago and yet the AfD vote is on its @rse, and Germany did the heavy lifting on underwriting the EU (club meds mostly) bank bailouts because it had the economic might to do so.

 

Being a ‘Europhile’ or not has sod all to do with any of this, nor being pro- or anti-German, nor any other black-and-white reductionist worldview.  Keeping abreast of world news is plenty sufficient.

1 hour ago, the_bloke said:

Yes, I am. If you want to compare Germany and the UK, please enlighten us as to the amazing things PR has brought to Germany that FPTP wouldn't have done?

How on earth could that be responded to, when Germany never had FPTP? 🤔

 

The thing about PR, is that more of the electorate bothers about who they are electing and why based on the candidates’ record and intentions, rather than about ‘winning’ or seeing their vote ‘wasted’.
 

How much of their manifestos did the last few British governments get to implement? How ‘done’ is Boris’ Brexit? How much u-turning on that 2019 manifesto a year on?

 

And for the avoidance of doubt, and the sake of balance, Labour’s no better in that respect - and many others. Manifestos are just magic electoral powder to the eyes.
 

FPTP is designed to keep your politics bipartisan, and in such a system, of course the first thing that happens when ‘the other side’ eventually gets in, is to undo everything the previous incumbents did, good and bad. Can’t have any acknowledgment that ‘the other side’ came up and did anything good, God forbid. It was holding you back. Now it’s making you reverse. Fast.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2021 at 06:01, West 77 said:

In the December 2019 General election the Tories got over 43% of the vote.  We saw what happened during the rogue parliament after Theresa May lost her majority.  PR in this country is a ludicrous suggestion.

So, as the Forum's no. 1 champion of democracy, you're happy for 43% of the vote to determine 100% of the government?

 

I think your idea of democracy might be a little different from mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RJRB said:

To call PR undemocratic is another ridiculous statement.

FPTP suits the Tories well particularly after tinkering around with constituency boundaries.

If PR was in force at the 2019 December General Election then the UK would still not have left the EU meaning leave voters would have been cheated out of their democratic choice.  PR gives to much power to the third and fourth largest parties meaning they can prevent or block the plans and policies of the largest parties. We saw what happened during the time of the rogue parliament.

Edited by West 77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

So, as the Forum's no. 1 champion of democracy, you're happy for 43% of the vote to determine 100% of the government?

 

I think your idea of democracy might be a little different from mine.

I'm happy with how the system works because voters choose a MP for their area.  The first past the post system means a change of government occurs immediately after a government is defeated at the ballot box and the largest party can normally govern properly and carry out their policies.  The Germans are still waiting for their next government to be announced weeks after their general election. Even in the US their public have to wait over two months for a defeated president to leave office.  

 

The truth is those wanting a change in our voting system are mostly anti Tory and anti democratic people. I never had a problem with our voting system when Labour were the largest party and were the party in government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.