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

One Party leader who was left of Lenin versus another who was right of Reagan made my mind up that I would never again vote for any party who’s leader I didn’t have total confidence in. You can have whatever electoral system you like but still end up with a muppet as PM, no thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 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.

I'd echo Anna's comments about being first not meaning best nor capable of later improvement.

 

Germany has stable governments under PR. It's not PR that causes Italy's political instabilities.

 

Neither is Germany "suffering election chaos". They'd rather wait a few weeks and get a good coalition forming the government rather than rush and risk getting a bad, unstable one.

 

Someone who claims to be as patriotic as you do should know that our country is not called Great Britain. The biggest island of our country is called "Great" to distinguish it from other parts of the British Isles and from the Duchy of Brittany. If you want to call our country Great Britain you'll have to wait for the reunification of Ireland - still, Brexit is hastening that so you might not have long to wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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%.

Edited by Hotmale 1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

Still nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Hotmale 1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Hotmale 1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Hotmale 1954

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 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.

Hundreds of years?  We've only had (more or less) universal suffrage since 1928, or 1969 if you want to include 18-21 year olds (which I'm sure you wouldn't).  Can't really call it a democracy before then, in any current sense of the word.

 

Sad bunch of anti-Tory cry babies?  You mean the (on average since 1945) 59% of voters who don't vote Tory?  Or just the 56.4% at the last election?

 

And ... "cry babies"?  How old are you again?

 

21 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.

PR might (or might not) have its problems, but being less democratic than FPTP isn't one of them.

 

21 hours ago, altus said:

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.

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.

Edited by CaptainSwing

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.