1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jun 5, 2024 11:08:46 GMT
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jun 5, 2024 11:15:33 GMT
...Of course if we had PR voting Farage, Galloway and Corbyn would permanently be MPs, unable to be removed and unaccountable to the voters, and with about 5-15% of all MPs each. The LibDems never explain quite why that would be a good thing. Yes they do. They believe all voters should be represented, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them. The terrifying danger of First Past the Post is that a sudden groundswell of sentiment around an election could land an untested extreme party with a majority. |
|
914 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jun 5, 2024 12:12:05 GMT
...Of course if we had PR voting Farage, Galloway and Corbyn would permanently be MPs, unable to be removed and unaccountable to the voters, and with about 5-15% of all MPs each. The LibDems never explain quite why that would be a good thing. Yes they do. They believe all voters should be represented, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them. The terrifying danger of First Past the Post is that a sudden groundswell of sentiment around an election could land an untested extreme party with a majority. First past the post only favours those who are already in power and wish to keep hold of that power. The argument that it gives us strong and stable government has been blown apart in the last ten years. A system of PR which gives a broader range of parties and independents a chance can only be a good thing. You'd have to reform the way parliament works with more sanctions and accountability for the feckless, idle, corrupt and incompetent and bring the institution into the 21st century. |
|
3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 5, 2024 12:25:02 GMT
I think society reaps what it sows; we get what we deserve.
|
|
1,482 posts
|
Post by mkb on Jun 5, 2024 13:50:43 GMT
Yes they do. They believe all voters should be represented, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them. The terrifying danger of First Past the Post is that a sudden groundswell of sentiment around an election could land an untested extreme party with a majority. First past the post only favours those who are already in power and wish to keep hold of that power. The argument that it gives us strong and stable government has been blown apart in the last ten years. A system of PR which gives a broader range of parties and independents a chance can only be a good thing. You'd have to reform the way parliament works with more sanctions and accountability for the feckless, idle, corrupt and incompetent and bring the institution into the 21st century. As a long-time staunch advocate of a more proportionally representive system, I think First Past the Post (FPTP) does tend to give stronger governments than PR, but the problem is that strong governments don't usually make for good governments. You need some brakes on power to stop governments taking reckless measures. I disagree with your first sentence though, and probably so would Sunak right now! We are so used to the Lab/Con two-party system that, until recently, it seemed unthinkable that either could be dislodged, but a scenario where Farage's Reform supplants the Tories might no longer be so far-fetched. Labour survived the split of the right to the SDP (although it then took them until 1997 to regain power), but how would it fare if a leftish faction managed to get organised under a disappointing Starmer government? Under FTPF in the UK, we have had parties achieve an overall majority with less than 40% of the popular vote, and that's been when there were just three main English parties. As politics fractures further, FTPF offers the possibility of a single party dominating with a lower overall share. |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jun 5, 2024 14:02:03 GMT
...Of course if we had PR voting Farage, Galloway and Corbyn would permanently be MPs, unable to be removed and unaccountable to the voters, and with about 5-15% of all MPs each. The LibDems never explain quite why that would be a good thing. Yes they do. They believe all voters should be represented, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them. The terrifying danger of First Past the Post is that a sudden groundswell of sentiment around an election could land an untested extreme party with a majority. Supporters of democracy think that people should have a choice of who to vote for and that the value of your vote shouldn't depend on where you live. If enough people vote for Farage then he should be in Parliament. He'd probably do less damage there than he does via the media circuit. Besides, Corbyn and Galloway have been direct beneficiaries of FPTP, and Farage's entire career has fed off the resentment many voters feel towards not being heard in Westminster elections. With a system like STV (as they have for the Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish local authority elections) then people - as in the public/voters, have far more choice. If they usually vote Labour they could chose to give their first preference to the candidate that was in the mould of Corbyn or the one that is in the mould of Starmer. If they usually vote Conservative they'd have have a choice between a Rees-Mogg type or a Ken Clarke type. That would have been particularly handy at the 2019 general election. Under FPTP you have to put up with whoever was selected by the local party or even party HQ or vote for another party. You can take a chance on voting for the minority party that actually represents your views, and not worry about it being a wasted vote. With multi-member constituencies you won't have to endure being ignored if your MP disagrees with you on a subject - or worse - is the cabinet minister leading a policy that you don't like. Imagine if you wanted the help of your MP over a sex discrimination issue and your MP was Christopher Chope? Or your business is struggling because of Brexit red-tape and your MP were Boris Johnson? Preferential voting with multi-member constituencies puts an end to the idea that any part of the country is red, blue or yellow, which avoids any particular part of the country being ignored by the party of government, and reduced geographical divides. It favours positive campaigning while FPTP actively rewards mud slinging. That's great for the press, and the people in charge of the largest party of the day. But it doesn't make for good government. |
|
914 posts
|
Post by karloscar on Jun 5, 2024 14:04:29 GMT
First past the post only favours those who are already in power and wish to keep hold of that power. The argument that it gives us strong and stable government has been blown apart in the last ten years. A system of PR which gives a broader range of parties and independents a chance can only be a good thing. You'd have to reform the way parliament works with more sanctions and accountability for the feckless, idle, corrupt and incompetent and bring the institution into the 21st century. As a long-time staunch advocate of a more proportionally representive system, I think First Past the Post (FPTP) does tend to give stronger governments than PR, but the problem is that strong governments don't usually make for good governments. You need some brakes on power to stop governments taking reckless measures. I disagree with your first sentence though, and probably so would Sunak right now! We are so used to the Lab/Con two-party system that, until recently, it seemed unthinkable that either could be dislodged, but a scenario where Farage's Reform supplants the Tories might no longer be so far-fetched. Labour survived the split of the right to the SDP (although it then took them until 1997 to regain power), but how would it fare if a leftish faction managed to get organised under a disappointing Starmer government? Under FTPF in the UK, we have had parties achieve an overall majority with less than 40% of the popular vote, and that's been when there were just three main English parties. As politics fractures further, FTPF offers the possibility of a single party dominating with a lower overall share. I would include Labour and the Tories together as "those who hold power" (two cheeks of the same ass anyway). That's why neither of them would consider proper reform of our system of government other than tinkering round the edges. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jun 5, 2024 14:47:42 GMT
...Of course if we had PR voting Farage, Galloway and Corbyn would permanently be MPs, unable to be removed and unaccountable to the voters, and with about 5-15% of all MPs each. The LibDems never explain quite why that would be a good thing. Yes they do. They believe all voters should be represented, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them. The terrifying danger of First Past the Post is that a sudden groundswell of sentiment around an election could land an untested extreme party with a majority. The terrifying danger of PR is that it would put extremist parties permanently in government as junior coalition partners with the means to demand concessions for their support - we saw a mild example of this when the DUP propped up the Tories but say Labour needed George Galloway (who "said in an interview that he didn’t think gay relationships were ‘as normal as a mum, a dad and kids’) and his merry band band for a majority if George was sitting there with 5-10% of the MPs ? LidDems would say "That's fine, his views need representing, put him in the cabinet" ? |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Jun 5, 2024 15:11:07 GMT
Yes they do. They believe all voters should be represented, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them. The terrifying danger of First Past the Post is that a sudden groundswell of sentiment around an election could land an untested extreme party with a majority. The terrifying danger of PR is that it would put extremist parties permanently in government as junior coalition partners with the means to demand concessions for their support - we saw a mild example of this when the DUP propped up the Tories but say Labour needed George Galloway (who "said in an interview that he didn’t think gay relationships were ‘as normal as a mum, a dad and kids’) and his merry band band for a majority if George was sitting there with 5-10% of the MPs ? LidDems would say "That's fine, his views need representing, put him in the cabinet" ? You are confusing a minority administration/coalition that was formed as a result of FPTP as opposed to one formed via a PR election. FPTP rewards adversarial and negative campaigning and it leads to adversarial government. We need more collaborative working. Under a coalition formed by a fair voting system where more voices are heard, there will be greater opportunity to form positive coalitions based on shared values, rather than shared enemies. As you note, with FPTP we've had Conservative governments pander to the extreme right wing of their own party, and to the likes of Nigel Farage who isn't even in parliament. The current Conservative government is already an effective coalition, and when Labour win they will be too. The difference is that the public has no meaningful say in the make-up of those coalition parties, so even if you are one of the more liberal 'One Nation' Tories who votes for them hoping they'll turn things around (or couldn't stand Corbyn) then you have to endure the influence of Iain Duncan Smith or a Liz Truss emergency (creating) budget. |
|
5,056 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 5, 2024 16:07:57 GMT
Well last night it seemed Game, Set & Match when Keir didn’t really challenge Sunak over that £2000 each families has to pay annually. Which gave Sunak a 51/49 advantage.
But Game, Set & Championship to Keir, when the treasury challenged his assertion.
So Angela Rayner up next on Friday, she doesn’t take hostages.
|
|
3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 5, 2024 16:20:47 GMT
Well last night it seemed Game, Set & Match when Keir didn’t really challenge Sunak over that £2000 each families has to pay annually. Which gave Sunak a 51/49 advantage. But Game, Set & Championship to Keir, when the treasury challenged his assertion. So Angela Rayner up next on Friday, she doesn’t take hostages. No, but she's as thick as mince. |
|
|
|
Post by orchidman on Jun 5, 2024 17:41:50 GMT
There's a good argument to be made that money should not be the attraction for potential MPs. Then maybe we might get fewer of the school-fee-paying set and more people with actual ability and passion. People with actual ability and passion is at most about 0.2% of the population and they disproportionately attend the best schools because we've just had 150 years of unprecedented social mobility and opportunity. The reason there aren't many working class heroes today is because their parents and grandparents became middle class. Labour still tries to pretend otherwise so we get idiots like John Prescott and Angela Rayner as political totems. Very few people with actual ability and passion are going to work for £90k a year in a job where half the time you are out of power wasting your time, where you can lose your job through no fault of your own and where two of your colleagues have been assassinated in recent memory. The PM of Singapore is paid $2m a year. Singapore is a well governed country. There's a good argument to be made that money should not be the attraction for potential MPs but there's a more realistic argument that you get what you pay for in this world. |
|
3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 5, 2024 18:06:45 GMT
Totally agree orchidman - MP salaries are a joke, thus we get joke MPs. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 5, 2024 19:16:06 GMT
Well last night it seemed Game, Set & Match when Keir didn’t really challenge Sunak over that £2000 each families has to pay annually. Which gave Sunak a 51/49 advantage. But Game, Set & Championship to Keir, when the treasury challenged his assertion. So Angela Rayner up next on Friday, she doesn’t take hostages. No, but she's as thick as mince. No, she isn't. You may not like her. You may not agree with everything she stands for. That's fine. To get to where she is from the place she started from - that is, to get from growing up in abject poverty as the child of an illiterate single parent, then leaving school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications, and rise to Deputy Leader of one of our two most important political parties by her early 40s - she'll have had to be very clever indeed. And even in a supposedly-egalitarian organisation like the Labour Party, she'll have had to work twenty times harder than her male peers. Like her or not, she is a formidable woman, and it would be very foolish indeed to underestimate her. |
|
3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 5, 2024 20:43:59 GMT
No, but she's as thick as mince. No, she isn't. You may not like her. You may not agree with everything she stands for. That's fine. To get to where she is from the place she started from - that is, to get from growing up in abject poverty as the child of an illiterate single parent, then leaving school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications, and rise to Deputy Leader of one of our two most important political parties by her early 40s - she'll have had to be very clever indeed. And even in a supposedly-egalitarian organisation like the Labour Party, she'll have had to work twenty times harder than her male peers. Like her or not, she is a formidable woman, and it would be very foolish indeed to underestimate her. That's your view. I think she's as thick as mince but like any politician knows how to climb the greasy pole. I don't really have time for any politicians, but she particularly grates me. I'm not too fussed about the gender debate and having to work harder - the same trope could be applied to Thatcher in her day, and many found her just as odious. I don't underestimate Rayner at all, which is why the prospect of her making critical decisions for the UK is deeply worrying. However, that could be said of many politicians. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 5, 2024 21:29:47 GMT
Yes they do. They believe all voters should be represented, no matter how strongly you may disagree with them. The terrifying danger of First Past the Post is that a sudden groundswell of sentiment around an election could land an untested extreme party with a majority. Supporters of democracy think that people should have a choice of who to vote for and that the value of your vote shouldn't depend on where you live. If enough people vote for Farage then he should be in Parliament. He'd probably do less damage there than he does via the media circuit. Besides, Corbyn and Galloway have been direct beneficiaries of FPTP, and Farage's entire career has fed off the resentment many voters feel towards not being heard in Westminster elections. With a system like STV (as they have for the Northern Ireland Assembly and Scottish local authority elections) then people - as in the public/voters, have far more choice. If they usually vote Labour they could chose to give their first preference to the candidate that was in the mould of Corbyn or the one that is in the mould of Starmer. If they usually vote Conservative they'd have have a choice between a Rees-Mogg type or a Ken Clarke type. That would have been particularly handy at the 2019 general election. Under FPTP you have to put up with whoever was selected by the local party or even party HQ or vote for another party. You can take a chance on voting for the minority party that actually represents your views, and not worry about it being a wasted vote. With multi-member constituencies you won't have to endure being ignored if your MP disagrees with you on a subject - or worse - is the cabinet minister leading a policy that you don't like. Imagine if you wanted the help of your MP over a sex discrimination issue and your MP was Christopher Chope? Or your business is struggling because of Brexit red-tape and your MP were Boris Johnson? Preferential voting with multi-member constituencies puts an end to the idea that any part of the country is red, blue or yellow, which avoids any particular part of the country being ignored by the party of government, and reduced geographical divides. It favours positive campaigning while FPTP actively rewards mud slinging. That's great for the press, and the people in charge of the largest party of the day. But it doesn't make for good government. Bit harsh on Corbo lumping him in with Galloway. He’s been an excellent constituency MP who has a chance of winning with out the backing of the Labour Party |
|
5,056 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Jun 5, 2024 21:48:08 GMT
No, but she's as thick as mince. No, she isn't. You may not like her. You may not agree with everything she stands for. That's fine. To get to where she is from the place she started from - that is, to get from growing up in abject poverty as the child of an illiterate single parent, then leaving school pregnant at 16 with no qualifications, and rise to Deputy Leader of one of our two most important political parties by her early 40s - she'll have had to be very clever indeed. And even in a supposedly-egalitarian organisation like the Labour Party, she'll have had to work twenty times harder than her male peers. Like her or not, she is a formidable woman, and it would be very foolish indeed to underestimate her. I totally agree, she is a formidable debater, better than Keir. I’ve heard her sitting in for James O’Brien on LBC. in the same way and I don’t agree with her politics at all and that is Kemi Badenock, but that does not mean I haven’t got complete respect from where she came from, in that Kemi started from very humble beginnings flipping burgers in McDonalds. Conversely you look at the ‘champions’ of the working people, but the racist, Richard Tice, Nigel Farage, Ben Habib and David Bull etc - who all had the silver spoon put in their mouths and there it has remained ever since. |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 5, 2024 21:50:44 GMT
I think she's as thick as mince but like any politician knows how to climb the greasy pole. I don't really have time for any politicians, but she particularly grates me. Precisely what is it about a bright, articulate, obviously hard-working woman who raised herself and her children out of poverty, who clearly is deeply committed to serving her constituents, and who retains a very pronounced Manchester accent that particularly grates on you? |
|
1,970 posts
|
Post by sf on Jun 5, 2024 21:55:59 GMT
in the same way and I don’t agree with her politics at all and that is Kemi Badenock, but that does not mean I haven’t got complete respect from where she came from Exactly. I find Ms. Badenoch's brand of politics appalling, but I have to respect the drive and determination it must have taken for her to reach the position she's achieved. |
|
3,484 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Jun 5, 2024 23:04:13 GMT
I think she's as thick as mince but like any politician knows how to climb the greasy pole. I don't really have time for any politicians, but she particularly grates me. Precisely what is it about a bright, articulate, obviously hard-working woman who raised herself and her children out of poverty, who clearly is deeply committed to serving her constituents, and who retains a very pronounced Manchester accent that particularly grates on you? Not sure what her accent has to do with anything - I just don't like her manner and she doesn't strike me as bright or articulate at all. Kudos for being a hard working woman (I think) though there are many hard working people who also tick that box. |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on Jun 6, 2024 7:44:20 GMT
in the same way and I don’t agree with her politics at all and that is Kemi Badenock, but that does not mean I haven’t got complete respect from where she came from, in that Kemi started from very humble beginnings flipping burgers in McDonalds. Not that humble. Her dad is a GP and her mum a professor with tenure at a US Uni.
I'd imagine her parents allowed her a part-time job as a student to get a little *real* life experience.
Middle-class Nigerians often play a cool hand with their children; born in the UK, often returning to Nigeria for fee-paying education before returing to the UK for Uni with dual nationality, comfortably bi-cultural, and speaking English without an accent (and at least two local West African languages). Private tutoring almost inevitable.
Fwiw she's Yoruba, a people that has a strong background in slavery on both sides of the operation. Unlike Europe, no written records.
I believe Olukemi Adegoke met Hamish Badenoch while campaign doorknocking in Dulwich (I was there as well!). He's in finance in The City. Also, almost inevitably.
All in all, a pretty middle class life experience, with a huge hole (in the teenage developmental stage of socio-economic awareness of fellow pupils/students).
|
|
|
|
Post by punxsutawney on Jun 6, 2024 8:38:25 GMT
The 'best' communicators happen to be the best liars. I'm not saying that the ability to communicate well isn't an important part or the role of serious politician, but if you have little regard for facts and are prepared to brazen it out and spin a yarn then it's easier to appear interesting. But there is a type of politician - and you get them across the political spectrum, like Galloway, Johnson, Farage and Salmond whose total belief in their own importance and lack of self-doubt makes them convincing salesmen. To the sort of person that doesn't want to check under the bonnet. As much as I loathe Farage and pretty much everything he stands for, I wouldn't mind if he were actually elected this time. He might have to do some work and be held accountable instead of swanning around stirring up hatred. Of course if we had PR voting Farage, Galloway and Corbyn would permanently be MPs, unable to be removed and unaccountable to the voters, and with about 5-15% of all MPs each. The LibDems never explain quite why that would be a good thing. Probably because if we believe in democracy, we should believe in the views of the people being fairly represented by the system. I despise Farage and Galloway, but if they are elected fairly by a significant proportion of the electorate, then that would be a fair outcome. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Jun 6, 2024 8:49:45 GMT
Of course if we had PR voting Farage, Galloway and Corbyn would permanently be MPs, unable to be removed and unaccountable to the voters, and with about 5-15% of all MPs each. The LibDems never explain quite why that would be a good thing. Probably because if we believe in democracy, we should believe in the views of the people being fairly represented by the system. I despise Farage and Galloway, but if they are elected fairly by a significant proportion of the electorate, then that would be a fair outcome. Would Galloway get enough votes to be a significant player under PR? |
|
|
|
Post by punxsutawney on Jun 6, 2024 8:52:55 GMT
Probably because if we believe in democracy, we should believe in the views of the people being fairly represented by the system. I despise Farage and Galloway, but if they are elected fairly by a significant proportion of the electorate, then that would be a fair outcome. Would Galloway get enough votes to be a significant player under PR? I would doubt it, he's able to capitalise in by-elections and local campaigns but PR would usually come with a vote share threshold to obtain representation, and I struggle to see a timeline where he breaks the 2-3% threshold you would anticipate being in place nationwide. |
|
19,777 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Jun 6, 2024 9:34:43 GMT
Please take the personal attacks/insinuations about member’s political allegiances out of this discussion. I said yesterday that we can do better but it’s looking like that may not be the case. Carry on and the thread will be closed so we don’t get to discuss the election at all.
Focus on the politics, not each other. Thank you.
|
|
