Join the Labour Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Stevo_666 said:
What I see here is people trying to distract from some very good election results for the tories.rick_chasey said:I guess focusing on the whole culture wars is a helpful way to distract from a decade of failed economic policy.
0 -
Is it socialist populism or populist socialism?Stevo_666 said:
What I see here is people trying to distract from some very good election results for the tories.rick_chasey said:I guess focusing on the whole culture wars is a helpful way to distract from a decade of failed economic policy.
Either way it is another defeat for true Conservatism1 -
I would argue that FPTP causes and reinforces a two party system.morstar said:The current situation is that fptp fundamentally works in a two party system but once the voting is wider spread it totally disproportionately favours tha largest single party regardless of overall popularity.
The tories are by far and a way the largest single.
Assuming that doesn’t change in the foreseeable future to overcome this, the opposition parties have to unite to gain power, the only way I see this happening is both national cohesion and a firm commitment to introduce PR upon success.
If not, it is simply a case of waiting while the incumbent party gets so complacent that people turn their backs on them.
Nobody who wins power under FPTP is going to introduce PR0 -
You don't think they arrived at the system by chance?surrey_commuter said:
I would argue that FPTP causes and reinforces a two party system.morstar said:The current situation is that fptp fundamentally works in a two party system but once the voting is wider spread it totally disproportionately favours tha largest single party regardless of overall popularity.
The tories are by far and a way the largest single.
Assuming that doesn’t change in the foreseeable future to overcome this, the opposition parties have to unite to gain power, the only way I see this happening is both national cohesion and a firm commitment to introduce PR upon success.
If not, it is simply a case of waiting while the incumbent party gets so complacent that people turn their backs on them.
Nobody who wins power under FPTP is going to introduce PR1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
That’s my point.surrey_commuter said:
I would argue that FPTP causes and reinforces a two party system.morstar said:The current situation is that fptp fundamentally works in a two party system but once the voting is wider spread it totally disproportionately favours tha largest single party regardless of overall popularity.
The tories are by far and a way the largest single.
Assuming that doesn’t change in the foreseeable future to overcome this, the opposition parties have to unite to gain power, the only way I see this happening is both national cohesion and a firm commitment to introduce PR upon success.
If not, it is simply a case of waiting while the incumbent party gets so complacent that people turn their backs on them.
Nobody who wins power under FPTP is going to introduce PR
The non-Tory vote is now so fractured they can’t get in under fptp.
The only way for non tories to gain power presently is to unite. They would need to offer a carrot to smaller parties to do so in PR.
Although it’s not even a concession. Labour need PR as much as the others now. With Scotland out of labours hands a majority is very unlikely.0 -
I don’t stare at the facts but is it not the other way round that the Tory vote is no longer fractured.morstar said:
That’s my point.surrey_commuter said:
I would argue that FPTP causes and reinforces a two party system.morstar said:The current situation is that fptp fundamentally works in a two party system but once the voting is wider spread it totally disproportionately favours tha largest single party regardless of overall popularity.
The tories are by far and a way the largest single.
Assuming that doesn’t change in the foreseeable future to overcome this, the opposition parties have to unite to gain power, the only way I see this happening is both national cohesion and a firm commitment to introduce PR upon success.
If not, it is simply a case of waiting while the incumbent party gets so complacent that people turn their backs on them.
Nobody who wins power under FPTP is going to introduce PR
The non-Tory vote is now so fractured they can’t get in under fptp.
The only way for non tories to gain power presently is to unite. They would need to offer a carrot to smaller parties to do so in PR.
Although it’s not even a concession. Labour need PR as much as the others now. With Scotland out of labours hands a majority is very unlikely.
If the end game is power rather than what power can achieve then finally realising that the rosette voters are going nowhere then adopting socialist policies is rather clever1 -
Neatly summarised by Portillo on the radio this morning. When parties lose elections they tend to turn inwards and choose new leaders that claim to address problems within the party rather than problems for the general public. (Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard; Miliband, Corbyn). Starmer seems to be determined to conform to this pattern unless he changes tack now.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Try harder Rick.kingstongraham said:Stevo_666 said:
What I see here is people trying to distract from some very good election results for the tories.rick_chasey said:I guess focusing on the whole culture wars is a helpful way to distract from a decade of failed economic policy.
Do you think the results were not good for the tories?
In the meantime, here's a song for both Labour and Lib Dem supporters:
https://youtu.be/vERQfc2nw6M "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
This is the labour party thread. You should know this by now.0
-
Good point, there is a bit of cross thread whining going on, which is why I posted a song on here for the poor old Labour supporterskingstongraham said:This is the labour party thread. You should know this by now.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is obviously more complicated.
Presumably if the Tories go hard enough after northern working class retirees eventually they will lose their appeal to better off southerners who they rely on as much as labour rely on working class folk.0 -
Seems there may be another by-election
Tracy Babin looking like winning the election for West Yorks Mayor which creates a vacancy in Batley & Spen (the seat formerly held by the late Jo Cox)
Lab currently with a 3.5k majority - independent former UKIPer took 6.5k the last time
Brace.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Interesting that a sitting MP would chase a gig as mayor.tailwindhome said:Seems there may be another by-election
Tracy Babin looking like winning the election for West Yorks Mayor which creates a vacancy in Batley & Spen (the seat formerly held by the late Jo Cox)
Lab currently with a 3.5k majority - independent former UKIPer took 6.5k the last time
Brace.
More locally based I guess and potentially more chance to actually make an impact.0 -
Who is the better off southerner going to vote for?
My prediction is that the cuckoo will thrown from the nest with great gusto and then as the DM headline above trumpets there will be a return to traditional family values0 -
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0
-
This is going to be another fun by-election.
In the meantime the battle lines are being drawn in Labour. Another loss will make this worse for them. Bring on the fight..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.0 -
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Stevo_666 said:
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.
Do you not see any downsides to an incompetent government not being held to account by a decent opposition? Would the law be better served if the prosecution (or the defence) were incompetent at their job?0 -
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.
Do you not see any downsides to an incompetent government not being held to account by a decent opposition? Would the law be better served if the prosecution (or the defence) were incompetent at their job?
And its working well so far...
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/labour-suffering-long-corbyn-no-known-cure/
Quite a good covid analogy "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I thought it was to keep THOSE ****ers out of power, not the ****ers in general.Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.
If a) then fair enough. If b), then a spectacular misfire.
Back when this started, it was Cameron. Pretty much downhill to ****erville all the way since then.0 -
Have another read of the first post in this thread, its clear enough all these years on.kingstongraham said:
I thought it was to keep THOSE ****ers out of power, not the ****ers in general.Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.
If a) then fair enough. If b), then a spectacular misfire.
Back when this started, it was Cameron. Pretty much downhill to ****erville all the way since then."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I still find it odd that if "keeping the ****ers out" means adopting the socialist policies of the "****ers" it can be seen as a good thing. There must be quite a few like me who have never voted for them but now have no Party who are an obvious choice?0
-
Yes, but you changed it to "the ****ers" on your latest post. Thought my post was clear about that. Sorry if it was too complicated, I'll try and rephrase it.Stevo_666 said:
Have another read of the first post in this thread, its clear enough all these years on.kingstongraham said:
I thought it was to keep THOSE ****ers out of power, not the ****ers in general.Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.
If a) then fair enough. If b), then a spectacular misfire.
Back when this started, it was Cameron. Pretty much downhill to ****erville all the way since then.
You wanted to stop the specific Labour badged ****ers, and have ended up with a bunch of spendy ****ers anyway. Funny old world, isn't it?0 -
And a Brexit you didn't want thrown in haha.0
-
Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.briantrumpet said:Stevo_666 said:
See my last sentence above...rick_chasey said:
You went out of your way to stop that happening.Stevo_666 said:
I've heard it so many times.pangolin said:It's been said many times but this is such a bizarre perspective Stevo. (at least) 2 good parties would hold each other to account and make the country better.
If Labour want to have a chance they need to get shot of their hard left wing, so maybe a civil war and a split might do them good in the long run. Then they might be capable of being a half decent opposition. Short term, this suits me just fine.
Do you not see any downsides to an incompetent government not being held to account by a decent opposition? Would the law be better served if the prosecution (or the defence) were incompetent at their job?
And its working well so far...
https://telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/05/10/labour-suffering-long-corbyn-no-known-cure/
Quite a good covid analogy
You seem to think that unchallenged incompetence is good thing, as long as the incompetence wears a blue rosette. The actual quality of government is secondary.
If you believed in the quality of the party you support, you'd welcome the challenge. It appears you don't want that challenge. Fair enough.0 -
If Labour had got in, I suspect I would already suffering some punishment taxation. Looking at the income tax plans in their last manifesto, it would have been substantial. Which of course I would be keen to avoid.kingstongraham said:
Yes, but you changed it to "the ****ers" on your latest post. Thought my post was clear about that. Sorry if it was too complicated, I'll try and rephrase it.Stevo_666 said:
Have another read of the first post in this thread, its clear enough all these years on.kingstongraham said:
I thought it was to keep THOSE ****ers out of power, not the ****ers in general.Stevo_666 said:
We've been over this so many times. The whole point of the exercise for me is to keep the ****ers out of power. As explained on page 1 of this thread.
If a) then fair enough. If b), then a spectacular misfire.
Back when this started, it was Cameron. Pretty much downhill to ****erville all the way since then.
You wanted to stop the specific Labour badged ****ers, and have ended up with a bunch of spendy ****ers anyway. Funny old world, isn't it?
So my point stands."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
