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, Jeffrey Shaw said:

Mr Blair himself was a Leaver, prior to becoming Labour leader.

I believe Neil Kinnock was also anti EU at one time.  It goes without saying the EU has been a nice little  earner for Neil Kinnock and members of his family and their wives.  Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, West 77 said:

We had an EU referendum where 52% of the electorate chose the option to leave the EU.  The  democratic choice to leave the EU was already decided before the 2019 December General Election.  It was the rogue parliament who didn't respect democracy and my point is if PR had been in place during the 2019 December General Election then Brexit wouldn't have happened because the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the SNP would all have blocked the implementation of the democratic choice the British people made.  The truth is there is only one major party in Britain that truly respects democracy and that is the Tory party and that is the main reason they won an eighty seat majority at the 2019 December General Election.

That statement must be a joke, surely...

 

The Tory deliberately blindsided the electorate, by making the last election all about Brexit, never mind the myriad problems their Austerity measures had caused, these weren't even discussed, as evidenced by Boris's no show at the Andrew Neil interview. All he could say was 'Get Brexit Done' (which he singularly hasn't managed to do judging by the unsolved problems it's caused,) as any other discussion would have exposed his lack of ability.

 

The only things the Tory party respects are wealth and power; how to get it, and how to keep it to themselves.

The sooner the population realises that, the sooner we might get closer to a decent more equitable society for all. 

 

 'I'm alright Jack, so f*** you.' should be the Conservative party motto...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, altus said:

Unlikely. If we'd had PR, the Tory and Labour governments wouldn't have got away with ignoring people's concerns about immigration for so long and we wouldn't have had brexit.

Tony makes a valid point.  There can be no doubt under PR that UKIP and then the Brexit Party would have challenged both the Lib Dems and the SNP for the position of the third largest party in the Westminster Parliament meaning there would have been a good chance that Nigel Farage could have become deputy Prime Minister just like Nick Clegg did in 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, West 77 said:

We had an EU referendum where 52% of the electorate chose the option to leave the EU.  The  democratic choice to leave the EU was already decided before the 2019 December General Election.

I see you're back to your "we had democracy once, we shouldn't have it again" argument.

Quote

It was the rogue parliament who didn't respect democracy and my point is if PR had been in place during the 2019 December General Election then Brexit wouldn't have happened because the Labour Party, the Lib Dems and the SNP would all have blocked the implementation of the democratic choice the British people made. 

The supreme court didn't rule Parliament had broken the law. It did rule that both the May and Johnson governments had broken the law. The only thing rogue during that time was the governments.

 

You've complained on this forum before about the opposition opposing Tory policies, even non brexit related ones, so you've demonstrated your lack of understanding/lack of respect for our democracy.

 

The EU transition period ended on Dec 31st 2020. Since then, do you think Brexit has gone well or badly?. 18% well, 53% badly, 29% neither or don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Anna B said:

That statement must be a joke, surely...

 

The Tory deliberately blindsided the electorate, by making the last election all about Brexit, never mind the myriad problems their Austerity measures had caused, these weren't even discussed, as evidenced by Boris's no show at the Andrew Neil interview. All he could say was 'Get Brexit Done' (which he singularly hasn't managed to do judging by the unsolved problems it's caused,) as any other discussion would have exposed his lack of ability.

 

The only things the Tory party respects are wealth and power; how to get it, and how to keep it to themselves.

The sooner the population realises that, the sooner we might get closer to a decent more equitable society for all. 

 

 'I'm alright Jack, so f*** you.' should be the Conservative party motto...

 

 

Whatever ...... yawn

Just now, altus said:

I see you're back to your "we had democracy once, we shouldn't have it again" argument.

The supreme court didn't rule Parliament had broken the law. It did rule that both the May and Johnson governments had broken the law. The only thing rogue during that time was the governments.

 

You've complained on this forum before about the opposition opposing Tory policies, even non brexit related ones, so you've demonstrated your lack of understanding/lack of respect for our democracy.

 

The EU transition period ended on Dec 31st 2020. Since then, do you think Brexit has gone well or badly?. 18% well, 53% badly, 29% neither or don't know.

Whatever ........ yawn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Tony makes a valid point.  There can be no doubt under PR that UKIP and then the Brexit Party would have challenged both the Lib Dems and the SNP for the position of the third largest party in the Westminster Parliament meaning there would have been a good chance that Nigel Farage could have become deputy Prime Minister just like Nick Clegg did in 2010.

The point is that PR would have prevented the Tory and Labour governments, over decades, from ignoring the concerns of the people who ended up voting for UKIP and so UKIP wouldn't have been successful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, West 77 said:

I'm happy with how the system works because voters choose a MP for their area.

Under the d'Hondt PR system, for instance, your area would choose several MPs from different parties.  At least one of them would most likely be somebody you voted for.  Whereas at the 2019 election (for instance) there were about 200 constituencies where less than half the votes were for the winning candidate so that, in those constituencies, more than half the people are now represented by somebody they didn't vote for.

 

11 hours ago, West 77 said:

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.

I don't follow.  Are you arguing that it's better to have a government that was voted for by a minority of the population than it is to have to wait a few weeks for a new government to be formed?  Fair enough if that's what you believe but, again, it doesn't sound very democratic to me.

 

11 hours ago, West 77 said:

Even in the US their public have to wait over two months for a defeated president to leave office.

Yes, under a (weird variant of) a FPTP system.  But you're right that it does give a malevolent outgoing president the chance to try and sabotage the incoming one - mentioning no names.

 

11 hours ago, West 77 said:

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

No, it's the apologists for FPTP who are anti-democratic, whether they're Tory, Labour or Monster Raving Loony Party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

Under the d'Hondt PR system, for instance, your area would choose several MPs from different parties.  At least one of them would most likely be somebody you voted for.  Whereas at the 2019 election (for instance) there were about 200 constituencies where less than half the votes were for the winning candidate so that, in those constituencies, more than half the people are now represented by somebody they didn't vote for.

 

I don't follow.  Are you arguing that it's better to have a government that was voted for by a minority of the population than it is to have to wait a few weeks for a new government to be formed?  Fair enough if that's what you believe but, again, it doesn't sound very democratic to me.

 

Yes, under a (weird variant of) a FPTP system.  But you're right that it does give a malevolent outgoing president the chance to try and sabotage the incoming one - mentioning no names.

 

No, it's the apologists for FPTP who are anti-democratic, whether they're Tory, Labour or Monster Raving Loony Party.

Game, set and match to CaptainSwing.

Share this post


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

Unlikely. If we'd had PR, the Tory and Labour governments wouldn't have got away with ignoring people's concerns about immigration for so long and we wouldn't have had brexit.

 

If MEPs were elected by FPTP rather than PR, how many seats do you think UKIP would have gained? The reality is they wouldn't have gained any and Tory and Labour governments would have just continued ignoring people's concerns about immigration.

The only people? Conservative MPs back proportional representation, arguing First Past the Post “encourages conflict and aggression”.

 

Your attempts to dismiss people arguing for a fairer electoral system as just being sore losers is merely an attempt to avoid debating the problems with FPTP.

I didn't say that FPTP didn't have problems. I said that PR delivered up failed promises and that proponents of PR should be careful what they wish for. 

 

There's plenty of banging on about the problems with FPTP so let's debate the problems with PR instead. Perhaps you can start a separate thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Tony said:

I didn't say that FPTP didn't have problems. I said that PR delivered up failed promises and that proponents of PR should be careful what they wish for. 

 

There's plenty of banging on about the problems with FPTP so let's debate the problems with PR instead. Perhaps you can start a separate thread.

I never claimed you said FPTP didn't have problems, I just pointed out you seem reluctant to discuss them. Your suggestion we debate the problems with PR instead, rather than as well, does little to convince me that is not the case.

 

The reality is both systems have benefits and problems. The question is which is fairer.

1 hour ago, CaptainSwing said:

Under the d'Hondt PR system, for instance, your area would choose several MPs from different parties.  At least one of them would most likely be somebody you voted for.  Whereas at the 2019 election (for instance) there were about 200 constituencies where less than half the votes were for the winning candidate so that, in those constituencies, more than half the people are now represented by somebody they didn't vote for.

It's worth adding that many people won't vote for smaller parties in UK general elections purely because they've got no chance of getting in under FPTP. With PR they are more likely to vote for smaller parties so that 200 constituencies where less than half the votes were for the winning candidate would likely be greater. See EU elections and proportions of MEPs for examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, West 77 said:

I believe Neil Kinnock was also anti EU at one time.  It goes without saying the EU has been a nice little  earner for Neil Kinnock and members of his family and their wives.  Enough said.

I was always anti-EU untill it came to deciding whether I thought it right to leave or remain.

I guess its just like people are anti-council and anti-Government, but you cannot leave those and stop receiving their services.

Share this post


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

Under the d'Hondt PR system, for instance, your area would choose several MPs from different parties.  At least one of them would most likely be somebody you voted for.  Whereas at the 2019 election (for instance) there were about 200 constituencies where less than half the votes were for the winning candidate so that, in those constituencies, more than half the people are now represented by somebody they didn't vote for.

 

I don't follow.  Are you arguing that it's better to have a government that was voted for by a minority of the population than it is to have to wait a few weeks for a new government to be formed?  Fair enough if that's what you believe but, again, it doesn't sound very democratic to me.

 

Yes, under a (weird variant of) a FPTP system.  But you're right that it does give a malevolent outgoing president the chance to try and sabotage the incoming one - mentioning no names.

 

No, it's the apologists for FPTP who are anti-democratic, whether they're Tory, Labour or Monster Raving Loony Party.

The FPTP system has worked just fine for hundreds of years in our country by normally ensuring the party that wins the most seats form a government and are able to govern independently.  It works just fine for the voter because they know if the candidate they choose on the ballot paper wins the most votes that person becomes their own MP. We saw what happened during the time of the rogue parliament  when all the main opposition parties blocked everything  the Prime Minister wanted to do.  A PR system would make the actions of the rogue parliament the norm.

 

There is no justification to change a voting system which has proved to be the best system to deliver stable governments that serve for a full term just to appease  a sad bunch of anti Tory cry babies who have no genuine respect for democracy.

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.