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

11 hours ago, altus said:

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.

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.

I also said that this thread is full of people banging on about problems with FPTP so I really don't think I have anything useful to add here since it is a Labour Party thread and I've already pointed out that Labour, like the Conservatives, have no interest in PR and that the voters actually voted against it when asked. 

 

But please, go ahead and start a separate thread about voting with any angle you like. You've been here as long as me, you know how this place works.

 

But, bear in mind that PR / FPTP discussions are a minority interest discussed by the politically disappointed who can't understand why they don't get their way, and those politically interested geeks who can't really fathom why the politically disappointed are still banging on about it. It could be a very insular, boring and unproductive conversation, but please, go for it, we might all earn something.

Edited by Tony

Share this post


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

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.

I’m not particularly in favour of PR, but you are incorrect about quite a lot of the above. 
 

FPTP does generally result in stable government, which is why I like it. What it also does in this country is to give roughly 45% of the population the power to call the shots over the remaining 55%. That’s not a good basis for government, whoever is in power

 

It also helps to sustain the pretence that we have two (or maybe 2.5) major parties. You can see from the problems  that Labour has, that they are at least two parties in one.

 

On the other side, the peculiar UKIP/Liberal Democrat coalition that is governing the country is further evidence that we really don’t have a two party system any more.

 

That said, I don’t think that PR is the answer. Maybe government needs a proper overhaul. Taking significant powers and finances away from London towards the regions, might be the way to go. That would involve encouraging some talent to take up regional government roles.
 

I’m not holding my breath.

Edited by sibon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, West 77 said:

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.

You don't know what democracy is. Embarrassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, West 77 said:

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.

FPTP is actually a rare form of democracy, not used very much elsewhere in the world, and is based on a confrontational two party system. It may have worked back in the day of Whigs and Tories, but we now have more than two parties which is why it no longer works properly. We now have governments which have been voted for by little more than a third of the population. 

 

It swings from one very different ethos to the other with changing governments, which makes it burdensome,  and slow to act, and hampers long term planning. It's an expensive, outmoded system in a fast paces world, which needs to change to reflect the times. The second house needs major reform as well.

 

Other countries manage very well with other (better?) systems. Maybe we should look further afield for ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

FPTP is actually a rare form of democracy, not used very much elsewhere in the world, and is based on a confrontational two party system. It may have worked back in the day of Whigs and Tories, but we now have more than two parties which is why it no longer works properly. We now have governments which have been voted for by little more than a third of the population. 

 

It swings from one very different ethos to the other with changing governments, which makes it burdensome,  and slow to act, and hampers long term planning. It's an expensive, outmoded system in a fast paces world, which needs to change to reflect the times. The second house needs major reform as well.

 

Other countries manage very well with other (better?) systems. Maybe we should look further afield for ideas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay in your opinion the mother of parliaments should follow other countries which have unstable governments such as Italy.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating and our FPTP system has delivered Liberal, Tory and even Labour stable governments over the centuries of democracy in our great country.   Germany are suffering election chaos and their people will be lucky to have a new government anytime this year.  The reason why our country is called Great Britain is because we don't follow foreign countries and have no need to look further afield for ideas especially on issues such has running our own democracy and electing our own governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/10/2021 at 19:05, L00b said:

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

 

Why were you inviting the contrast of UK vs. German government performance and success in post #1793 if you can't attribute the supposed success of Germany to PR then? Was it just for yet another dig at the UK?

Share this post


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

Okay in your opinion the mother of parliaments should follow other countries which have unstable governments such as Italy.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating and our FPTP system has delivered Liberal, Tory and even Labour stable governments over the centuries of democracy in our great country.   Germany are suffering election chaos and their people will be lucky to have a new government anytime this year.  The reason why our country is called Great Britain is because we don't follow foreign countries and have no need to look further afield for ideas especially on issues such has running our own democracy and electing our own governments.

This attitude is a good example of what's wrong with this country. It's arrogant and archaic. Our methods of government were originally built by Aristocrats for Aristocrats and couldn't be further from democracy, but those attitudes still persist in some of our politicians belief that they are born to rule. It also more than evident in our second 'House of Lords.'

 

Just because we were the first (debatable) to build a parliament in a similar style to its current form, doesn't make it the best, nor mean that it cannot be improved.  Times change, the ability to adapt and change with it, is an important aspect of survival; others have built on it, tweaked it and improved it, and we can always learn from others, again to think otherwise is arrogant beyond belief. 

 

As for the 'centuries of democracy,' that is also debatable. Overall, the Tories, the modern equivalents of the old Aristos, still dominate through a quirk of our forelock tugging, class riddled society. The Liberal party were only in power when it was one of two parties. The Labour party is barely a century old, Universal suffrage didn't come in until the 1920's and we were one of the last western countries to adopt it, and don't get me started on the rotten buroughs of the 18th and 19th centuries etc. 

 

When I watch TV coverage of our overblown Parliament I am appalled at how ponderous, slow moving and unfit for purpose it looks. Compared with modern, purpose built debating chambers in other countries (including Scotland,) it's anachronistic. They have all the advantages of modern technology and look like progressive, efficient places of work. I also suspect they are cheaper to run. The world has changed, we are no longer masters of the Empire, if we want to stay ahead of the game we have to change with it.

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that people keep mentioning the word 'democracy' yet both PR and FPTP meet the dictionary definition of the word. Something is either democratic, or it isn't.

 

Imagine voting in an election in September, and the previous government stays in power until all the back room agreements and hand shaking are complete.. say by Christmas? Maybe by Christmas? If you don't feel FPTP is democratic, how do you feel about voting out a Government only for it to remain in power until some arbitrary point in the future? Isn't the record something like a year and a half in Belgium?

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-coalition-formal-talks-likely-spd-fdp-greens/

 

Going back on topic:

 

`'We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.' - Labour 1997 Manifesto

 

Then after they actually won:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/may/24/uk.election200111 - `Blair accused of breaking promise on voting reform`

Share this post


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

Why were you inviting the contrast of UK vs. German government performance and success in post #1793 if you can't attribute the supposed success of Germany to PR then?

 Have I not?

24 minutes ago, the_bloke said:

Was it just for yet another dig at the UK?

I don’t take digs at “the UK” itself much. There isn’t much about “the UK” to take digs at.
 

I take digs essentially at the last couple of UK governments, and their supporters. Now that’s a target-rich environment 😆

Share this post


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

Interesting that people keep mentioning the word 'democracy' yet both PR and FPTP meet the dictionary definition of the word. Something is either democratic, or it isn't.

 

Imagine voting in an election in September, and the previous government stays in power until all the back room agreements and hand shaking are complete.. say by Christmas? Maybe by Christmas? If you don't feel FPTP is democratic, how do you feel about voting out a Government only for it to remain in power until some arbitrary point in the future? Isn't the record something like a year and a half in Belgium?

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-coalition-formal-talks-likely-spd-fdp-greens/

 

Going back on topic:

 

`'We are committed to a referendum on the voting system for the House of Commons. An independent commission on voting systems will be appointed early to recommend a proportional alternative to the first-past-the-post system.' - Labour 1997 Manifesto

 

Then after they actually won:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/may/24/uk.election200111 - `Blair accused of breaking promise on voting reform`

Well of course Labour weren't going to change anything in 97, they won by a landslide!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

Well of course Labour weren't going to change anything in 97, they won by a landslide!

Similarly the Liberal party didn't change anything when they won a landslide in 1906. 

 

The anti Tory / anti democratic mob have short memories because after the 2017 general election result the DUP were accused of accepting a bung to keep the Tories in power.  A PR system would result in similar allegations  by sore losers after ever general election.  The good thing about FPTP is that it's normally the electorate who decide who governs our country and not politicians behind closed doors. 

Share this post


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

Similarly the Liberal party didn't change anything when they won a landslide in 1906. 

 

The anti Tory / anti democratic mob have short memories because after the 2017 general election result the DUP were accused of accepting a bung to keep the Tories in power.  A PR system would result in similar allegations  by sore losers after ever general election.  The good thing about FPTP is that it's normally the electorate who decide who governs our country and not politicians behind closed doors. 

Short memories? The Labour party didn't even exist in 1906 and the Liberals have never won since. 

 

If you believe that you'll believe anything...  I would argue that our governments are decided by the Tory owned media and whatever message they decide to put out.

Edited by Anna B

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.