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

2 hours ago, apelike said:

That's fine, providing they do it peacefully and don't resort to rioting.

 

Just because as a socialist you don't like the way it works does not mean its not a representative democracy as you have a number of options available to try and change it.

How?

 

And don't forget a government can get elected with barely a third of the vote, so not necessarily representative of the majority. The system needs to change.

 

And what's to stop the powers that be from putting 'agent provocateurs' into peaceful demonstrations it doesn't like or finds embarrassing. It's happened before.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, Anna B said:

How?

One way is by getting your Labour party to do something to help that along.

 

Quote

And don't forget a government can get elected with barely a third of the vote, so not necessarily representative of the majority. The system needs to change.

But just as in the referendum it's the voters that take part that determine the outcome. As you know our elections are based on the number of seats gained and any party needs 326 seats to win and that is how it works. In 2019 the Conservatives got 365 and Labour 202.

 

Quote

And what's to stop the powers that be from putting 'agent provocateurs' into peaceful demonstrations it doesn't like or finds embarrassing. It's happened before.

That may or may not happen regardless and I not sure that it has happened before.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 22/03/2021 at 20:14, Anna B said:

And don't forget a government can get elected with barely a third of the vote, so not necessarily representative of the majority. The system needs to change.

 

 

Ive got an idea. Lets split the country up into regions and regularly give every adult the opportunity to vote for whoever they want to represent their area. Its up to the adults then to vote and the people who win the most of these regions wins.

 

Or for one off votes, such as, say a referendum, we give everyone the vote and group them all together and the one with the most, wins

 

Sounds fairly fair to me, what's your alternative?
 

Edited by sheffbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, sheffbag said:

Ive got an idea. Lets split the country up into regions and regularly give every adult the opportunity to vote for whoever they want to represent their area. Its up to the adults then to vote and the people who win the most of these regions wins.

 

Or for one off votes, such as, say a referendum, we give everyone the vote and group them all together and the one with the most, wins

 

Sounds fairly fair to me, what's your alternative?
 

Proportional Representation.

Not perfect, but better, as the parties split and the number of parties grow.

 

And no, we haven't had a vote for PR already in 2011, mooted by the Liberal Democrats.  

That was for AV, the Alternative Vote, a deliberate Tory muddying of the water by David Cameron that no one understood or wanted.

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


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

Proportional Representation.

Not perfect, but better, as the parties split and the number of parties grow.

 

And no, we haven't had a vote for PR already in 2011, mooted by the Liberal Democrats.  

That was for AV, the Alternative Vote, a deliberate Tory muddying of the water by David Cameron that no one understood or wanted.

Judging by what happened in Parliament before Boris and the Tories won their 80 seat majority I don't think PR would work in this country. I suspect most of the opposition parties would block whatever the largest party in a PR Parliament wanted to do.  The present system works well in this country providing their isn't a hung Parliament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Proportional Representation.

Not perfect, but better, as the parties split and the number of parties grow.

 

And no, we haven't had a vote for PR already in 2011, mooted by the Liberal Democrats.  

That was for AV, the Alternative Vote, a deliberate Tory muddying of the water by David Cameron that no one understood or wanted.

now how did i know you would suggest that so...

 

2019 GE result by proportional rep. Based on the 30848002 votes cast for the parties that won seats this equates to 47458 votes per seat

this gives the following results

Conservative - 13,941,086 - 293 seats (364 in GE)

Labour - 10, 292,354 - 216 (203)

Lib Dem - 3,675,342 - 77 (11)

SNP - 1,242,380 - 26 (48)

Green  - 864,743 - 18 (1)

DUP - 244,127 - 5 (8)

SF - 181,853 - 4 (7)

PC - 153,265 - 3 (4)

Alliance - 134,115 - 3 (1)

SDIP - 118,737 - 2 (2)

 

So we get a non majority parliament , even in 1997 when Labour won 418 seats and the Conservatives and Lib dem got 211 between them then PR would have resulted in a hung parliament as Labour only got 43% of the vote . since 1900 there has only been 2 times when there has been a majority vote for any party at any GE. The only times there were was in the 30's  both had majorities for the National party. The only real winners are the Lib Dem but the questions are

 

I vote for my member of parliament, if that person under PR wins the most votes in my area but isn't represented in parliament  (such as any of the 71 seats the conservatives would lose under PR)why should I be represented by a person who doesn't represent the wishes and votes of my constituency.

 

If the PR vote is just a straight vote for the party and then they will pick the MP to represent you then who chooses the MP and which areas do those MPs go to based on splitting the constituencies up. For example, Who gets the seats that the tories lose in order to bring the lib dem count up?

 

If i am in Scotland and voted SNP then 22 MPs to represent me have just been lost and always will be due to the number of votes available in Scotland (and Wales/Ireland) in comparison to england. Who represents the voters for these areas in parliament? 

 

PR essentially dismisses local politics and becomes a national vote with no assurance that the person selected will represent the area you are from correctly (would you put a Labour MP in the middle of the Tory heartland or Scotland?)

 

It dismisses the smaller constituencies in favour of ones with larger voting capability. A potential vote cast in Orkney (electorate 34211) is worth one third of a potential vote cast in the Isle of Wight (electorate 113021). source https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8749/  Both are islands and at present both woudl have an MP based on the decision of the people who live there and woudl support the people who live there. PR woudl mean that 74442 people who did vote in IOW would have a 75% influence over the 23160 who voted in Orkney. How is that fair to the people of Orkney?

 

So how is this better than voting for a person to represent your area in parliament and then finding out that you get someone else because more people turned out in a different constituency?

Edited by sheffbag

Share this post


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

I vote for my member of parliament, if that person under PR wins the most votes in my area but isn't represented in parliament  (such as any of the 71 seats the conservatives would lose under PR)why should I be represented by a person who doesn't represent the wishes and votes of my constituency.

I have councillors that dont live in my area and they pay a different local authorities council tax. That is much worse than an MP that could live anywhere in the country. MPs do often have homes in London and then a home nearer their constituency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, El Cid said:

I have councillors that dont live in my area and they pay a different local authorities council tax. That is much worse than an MP that could live anywhere in the country. MPs do often have homes in London and then a home nearer their constituency.

with respect , that has nothing to do with the point.  Councillors are not MPs and do not make national decisions. However,  a councillor will be the person that the people in your area voted for in an election and therefore are the chosen representative for the (normally) politcal affiliation of the area. Under PR this may not be the case, that is the point im making

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 22/03/2021 at 21:14, Anna B said:

How?

Realistically, a political coalition with other parties is the only way that Labour can hope to return to *shared* power in 2024.

 

Starmer does not strike me as having sufficient vision and political clout to handle that. For all his perceived positives of only a few months ago, going by his latest he’s been consumed by internal politics already and is a write-off. Labour needs a deal maker, unafraid of dumping the dinos and willing to govern by consensus. A tall order.
 

The LibDems enjoy about as much notoriety and political relevance as you can say ‘Nick Clegg, student fees’ all these years later, after disastrous figurehead rebrands. Still, the voting tally is non-trivial, and probably least tribal (relative to Tory/Lab/Greens/SNP), so more ‘transferable’ than others.

 

The Greens are doing a great job of building *and then keeping* their voting tally, but at such a glacial pace that, under the FPTP, they might get into sight of governance next century. Might. They’d likely jump at a power-sharing chance to prove their policy-making and executive mettle.

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, sheffbag said:

now how did i know you would suggest that so...

 

2019 GE result by proportional rep. Based on the 30848002 votes cast for the parties that won seats this equates to 47458 votes per seat

this gives the following results

Conservative - 13,941,086 - 293 seats (364 in GE)

Labour - 10, 292,354 - 216 (203)

Lib Dem - 3,675,342 - 77 (11)

SNP - 1,242,380 - 26 (48)

Green  - 864,743 - 18 (1)

DUP - 244,127 - 5 (8)

SF - 181,853 - 4 (7)

PC - 153,265 - 3 (4)

Alliance - 134,115 - 3 (1)

SDIP - 118,737 - 2 (2)

 

So we get a non majority parliament , even in 1997 when Labour won 418 seats and the Conservatives and Lib dem got 211 between them then PR would have resulted in a hung parliament as Labour only got 43% of the vote . since 1900 there has only been 2 times when there has been a majority vote for any party at any GE. The only times there were was in the 30's  both had majorities for the National party. The only real winners are the Lib Dem but the questions are

 

I vote for my member of parliament, if that person under PR wins the most votes in my area but isn't represented in parliament  (such as any of the 71 seats the conservatives would lose under PR)why should I be represented by a person who doesn't represent the wishes and votes of my constituency.

 

If the PR vote is just a straight vote for the party and then they will pick the MP to represent you then who chooses the MP and which areas do those MPs go to based on splitting the constituencies up. For example, Who gets the seats that the tories lose in order to bring the lib dem count up?

 

If i am in Scotland and voted SNP then 22 MPs to represent me have just been lost and always will be due to the number of votes available in Scotland (and Wales/Ireland) in comparison to england. Who represents the voters for these areas in parliament? 

 

PR essentially dismisses local politics and becomes a national vote with no assurance that the person selected will represent the area you are from correctly (would you put a Labour MP in the middle of the Tory heartland or Scotland?)

 

It dismisses the smaller constituencies in favour of ones with larger voting capability. A potential vote cast in Orkney (electorate 34211) is worth one third of a potential vote cast in the Isle of Wight (electorate 113021). source https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8749/  Both are islands and at present both woudl have an MP based on the decision of the people who live there and woudl support the people who live there. PR woudl mean that 74442 people who did vote in IOW would have a 75% influence over the 23160 who voted in Orkney. How is that fair to the people of Orkney?

 

So how is this better than voting for a person to represent your area in parliament and then finding out that you get someone else because more people turned out in a different constituency?

PR is a clumsy start but real change requires a different mindset, and a totally different system.

Currently the system is all about opposition rather than cooperation.

I think that needs to change. Surely we can achieve more together than fighting each other all the time. Politicians/ we should have the common good of all in mind. And the turn around every 5 years does nothing for long term planning. I'd like to see a stop (or at least a reduction) of lobbying, and party donations. All sorts of things need to change. Computers and the internet seem to have invaded every domain of life, except politics. They should be harnessed more widely to make decisions based on data.  

 

We are moving into new territory with new parameters that haven't been experienced before. Aaron Bastani calls it the third great upheaval; the first being early man mastering farming rather than the nomadic existence of hunter-gatherers, the second was the move from farming to mass production in the 1800's, and the third is the advent of mass production being superseded by globalisation and Artificial Intelligence, with robotics doing much of the work. That brings its own dilemmas, and that's what we should be working on right now.

 

We still have a governmental system which goes back centuries mired with archaic 'traditions' that make it slow and lumbering, and in a fast moving and changing world, is IMO no longer fit for purpose.

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, sheffbag said:

with respect , that has nothing to do with the point.  Councillors are not MPs and do not make national decisions. However,  a councillor will be the person that the people in your area voted for in an election and therefore are the chosen representative for the (normally) politcal affiliation of the area. Under PR this may not be the case, that is the point im making

My MP is married to another MP that lives 100+ miles away, either they live apart (they have a young baby) for 5 years, in practice they try to keep where they live quiet.

Even councillors no longer have to put their address on the ballot paper, they might get harrassed, so why should we know where they live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/03/2021 at 07:06, El Cid said:

My MP is married to another MP that lives 100+ miles away, either they live apart (they have a young baby) for 5 years, in practice they try to keep where they live quiet.

Even councillors no longer have to put their address on the ballot paper, they might get harrassed, so why should we know where they live.

I think you are missing the point of my post. Its not where the MP lives that is the question.

If PR was used at the previous election then who decides who gets which seat. The party who wins the most votes may not be the representative party for that area due to votes elsewhere. Therefore how do those people fully represent the wishes of the people who didn't elect them?

 

Thats the point im making, its nothing to do with who lives where or who is married to who. Its about the fact that PR would result in parties not representing the areas where they are favoured so my question to Anna was how was that fair and how would it work

On 24/03/2021 at 23:26, Anna B said:

PR is a clumsy start but real change requires a different mindset, and a totally different system.

Currently the system is all about opposition rather than cooperation.

I think that needs to change. Surely we can achieve more together than fighting each other all the time. Politicians/ we should have the common good of all in mind. And the turn around every 5 years does nothing for long term planning. I'd like to see a stop (or at least a reduction) of lobbying, and party donations. All sorts of things need to change. Computers and the internet seem to have invaded every domain of life, except politics. They should be harnessed more widely to make decisions based on data.  

 

We are moving into new territory with new parameters that haven't been experienced before. Aaron Bastani calls it the third great upheaval; the first being early man mastering farming rather than the nomadic existence of hunter-gatherers, the second was the move from farming to mass production in the 1800's, and the third is the advent of mass production being superseded by globalisation and Artificial Intelligence, with robotics doing much of the work. That brings its own dilemmas, and that's what we should be working on right now.

 

We still have a governmental system which goes back centuries mired with archaic 'traditions' that make it slow and lumbering, and in a fast moving and changing world, is IMO no longer fit for purpose.

as usual, didnt answer any of the questions at all. What does any of that have to do with how PR would work in the UK or any of the questions i asked?

Since you said "5 years does nothing for long term planning" how long should a government have in power before the vote goes back to the public in your opinion?

What does AI have to do with an election system?

 

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.