Join the Labour Party and save your country!

Jez mon

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think the supporters of PR on here are mainly driven by the main thought that they don't want the Tories in charge, without really thinking through what a mess PR could be with parties like UKIP, SNP etc potentially holding the balance of power. No thanks.

And the supporters of fptp are driven by the thought of a party that gets 38% of the vote with turnout of 66% getting to lead unopposed...

Also I don't know what you think a mess consists of but it strikes me that constant in fighting over the eu, a number of junior doctors strikes, a u turn over making all schools academys and a further delay to the decision of how to expand airport capacity in the south East all strike me as exaples of poor governance...

morstar

I don't think the UK electorate is scared of coalition government. If you look at the voting patterns and poll suggestions running up to 2015, the electorate were convinced it would be a hung parliament. Hence the willingness to vote UKIP, SNP etc.
Everybody was surprised the Tories won outright and anybody suggesting otherwise is indulging in revisionism. I am not a Tory supporter so my view is subjective but I genuinely felt democracy was the loser in 2015. Can't stand Farage but the lack of Ukip representation, whilst a relief to me, is not representative of democracy.
The electorate has clearly indicated that in an internet age, two big parties cannot represent the breadth of public opinion with simply left or right wing. In the same way public services and industry alike have had to modernise, so does our political system. And as stated by somebody else, the last coalition government gave us a right leaning but structured government. That seemed far more effective than we have at present.
At what point does FPTP become untenable? how small a share of the vote will be able to get a government a working majority in future years whilst still claiming a 'popular mandate'?
I don't pretend PR is perfect but I also don't buy the idea that effective governance is left and right taking it in turns to swing radically one way or the other correcting each others perceived mistakes. There's masses of evidence of poor governance from both sides so no point debating who's worse.

Stevo_666

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think the supporters of PR on here are mainly driven by the main thought that they don't want the Tories in charge, without really thinking through what a mess PR could be with parties like UKIP, SNP etc potentially holding the balance of power. No thanks.

And the supporters of fptp are driven by the thought of a party that gets 38% of the vote with turnout of 66% getting to lead unopposed...

Also I don't know what you think a mess consists of but it strikes me that constant in fighting over the eu, a number of junior doctors strikes, a u turn over making all schools academys and a further delay to the decision of how to expand airport capacity in the south East all strike me as exaples of poor governance...

We've heard all the guff about 38% of the vote so many time before - if it was your party that got in on that, you wouldn't complain.

As for a mess, imagine a situation where no action can be taken because the coalition cant agree how to solve the issues. And if you think New Old Labour have the answers, dream on....

tangled_metal

Just out of curiousity which flavour of PR or the alternatives would you prefer to FPTP? Isn't there one type where you get lists of candidates from each party and depending on the proportion of the vote a party gets how far down the list you get candidates elected. Is that what you mean by PR?

I only ask because I can not see how that will engage people any more than FPTP. Also something like that will not give even lipservice to local representation. What I mean is will PR result in a link between an MP and a constituency? I must admit to being happy with the current system so I have not looked into the alternatives much. The versions of election styles we have in the UK (Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly I think) that have elements of PR are designed to reduce the chances of any party having complete majority. To encourage consensus politics IIRC. Personally I prefer adversarial systems.

The usual arguments against FPTP go along the line of 38% of 2/3rds of those eligible to vote. Will that change with different systems? Also, so what? I mean if someone does not choose to vote is that not their choice? What I mean is it would be nice and dandy if everyone felt enpowered and motivated to get involved in politics by voting but that will never happen in our apathtic country. All we can do is get involved ourselves and leave it to others to vote or not themselves. IF 68% of the potential electorate are voting then that is still above average. In some ways it is working for them or they would not make the effort to vote, something drives them to do it. Changing the voting system to try and get the 32% to vote is going after the minority.

Personally I think there are some with sour grapes when their side did not win. Anomalies such as high proportion of the vote getting spread evenly across consituencies to effectiely dilute them are not ideal. UKIP and Lib Dems are the types of parties that would traditionally do better in PR system. Labour and Tories tend to do well out of FPTP with each of them taking turns to get into government. Personally I would prefer those two on their own in government to a coalition of minor parties. I would not want to see a Labour SNP government because one is a regional only party and not a UK wide party. Yes I know labour and tories do not stand in NI but that aside SNP does not stand in England or Wales. UKIP does not stand in Scotland. Plaid Cymru will not stand in England or Scotland. If you got a PR government I reckon at least one of those would make the cabinet. You could include UUP, DUP, SF, etc. I would rather FPTP than Tory, DUP, UUP and UKIP coalition. Same goes to Labour, Greens, SNP, PC coalition. This is my opposition to changing the system, that and I would prefer to see a candidate standing in my patch and chosen by those in my patch. Constituency competitions not a national competition for each MP spot.

morstar

Lack of regional representation is the real potential loss under pr rather than the straw man of weak government. Yes, I would just divvy up the seats in a list from top down with the lists having some form of regional organisation. Not perfect I accept but a) a huge proportion of people are voting for a prime minister rather than a local mp anyway, b) people are voting tactically against their true beliefs so how is that anymore representative of them.
Concensus government is my preference. In 2010, I believe it would have been wrong for the largest single party to have been frozen out of government by a coalition of 'everybody else' as that would be undemocratic.
Funnily enough, businesses tackle real issues and move forwards despite having leaders with diverse skill sets and frequently conflicting beliefs and ideas, why is government any different?
Where would educational policy come from if it wasn't a single party vision? The parties would put together a diverse management group and deliver a policy, it may not be perfect, but it couldn't possibly be as incoherent as what we have now. I also guarantee you would see considerably fewer u-turns and waste on ideological but ill conceived policy decisions. those arguments would be thrashed out by concensus prior to proposing a policy rather than the Gove's and Hunts of the world being let loose with their idiotic ideas. People of other political persuasion can undoubtedly provide examples of other ideological zealots with more left wing leanings.

orraloon

morstar wrote:

In 2010, I believe it would have been wrong for the largest single party to have been frozen out of government by a coalition of 'everybody else' as that would be undemocratic.

Why so, undemocratic?

Surely a coalition of everybody else with more MPs than the single largest party would be more representative of the wishes of the electorate so more democratic?

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I think the supporters of PR on here are mainly driven by the main thought that they don't want the Tories in charge, without really thinking through what a mess PR could be with parties like UKIP, SNP etc potentially holding the balance of power. No thanks.

And the supporters of fptp are driven by the thought of a party that gets 38% of the vote with turnout of 66% getting to lead unopposed...

Also I don't know what you think a mess consists of but it strikes me that constant in fighting over the eu, a number of junior doctors strikes, a u turn over making all schools academys and a further delay to the decision of how to expand airport capacity in the south East all strike me as exaples of poor governance...

We've heard all the guff about 38% of the vote so many time before - if it was your party that got in on that, you wouldn't complain.

As for a mess, imagine a situation where no action can be taken because the coalition cant agree how to solve the issues. And if you think New Old Labour have the answers, dream on....

You ve hit the nail on the head, so long as either tory or Labour swoop power between them, PR will never happen, at least until we end up with such low turn out, we end up getting some loon in power... oh hang on, thats happening right now!

lets give £400million of tax payers money to 2 "fantastically corrupt countries" and then hold a conference on anti-corruption, ignoring that the UK has a few "overseas" territories that help aid such corruption......

ddraver

Stevo 666 wrote:

if it was your party that got in on that, you wouldn't complain.

Again, could you even entertain the thought that a great deal of us - a majority of my friends/colleagues - don't have "a party"

Jez mon

ddraver wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

if it was your party that got in on that, you wouldn't complain.

Again, could you even entertain the thought that a great deal of us - a majority of my friends/colleagues - don't have "a party"

This is the case for me. I do find it odd how people seem to support parties in the same way that others people support football teams.

bigmat

Jez mon wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

if it was your party that got in on that, you wouldn't complain.

Again, could you even entertain the thought that a great deal of us - a majority of my friends/colleagues - don't have "a party"

This is the case for me. I do find it odd how people seem to support parties in the same way that others people support football teams.

Absolutely! Some frequent posters on this thread are so bad you can imagine them having scarves and everything. It shouldn't be us and them all the time, if the Tories have decent policies then I don't have a problem with them, likewise when Labour start lurching to the left and spouting rubbish then I find it pretty hard to get behind them. I just want somebody competent with a social conscience and a progressive approach to modern economics but that seems like far too much to ask...

Stevo_666

ddraver wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

if it was your party that got in on that, you wouldn't complain.

Again, could you even entertain the thought that a great deal of us - a majority of my friends/colleagues - don't have "a party"

There's a big difference between entertaining the thought and giving a t0ss

Although that said, if you don't vote that isn't a bad thing from my perspective.

tangled_metal

Is it bad that people do not vote? What is your view?

One side it is good because it means fewer to potentially vote against the side you prefer. I think this is what Stevo said.

On the other side it is bad because it means that people are not engaged with democracy such as it is here.

In some ways I am in both camps because right now there are voting choices I dislike such as Corbyn, his shadow chancellor and his followers such as Ms Abbott. The fewer voting could mean fewer to vote for them and against me. On the other hand I instinctly believe it is our duty to have a say in politics. Any opportuity to vote that is not taken up is a slap in the face of those who fought for the right to vote and we all lose out in those missed voices (as small and insignificant as most of our voices are).

BTW I do not wear a scarf in blue or red or green. I vote according to my conscience based on actual policies and whether I feel the party and the candidate comes across as believable and to be trusted. I look at the actual candidate but vote tactically to try to help the party I feel best in terms of policies and trust factor. There is nothing wrong with this. Just because I may vote for a party I do not want to form a government in order to help the party I do want in government is still positive IMHO. The end goal is to get the best governement for the country according to our views, being ruthless about it by using strategic voting is a case of end result justifies the means.

pblakeney

Tangled Metal wrote:

Any opportuity to vote that is not taken up is a slap in the face of those who fought for the right to vote and we all lose out in those missed voices (as small and insignificant as most of our voices are).

Here is the thing.
If everyone who doesn't vote, did vote, then the outcome could be vastly different. Some may not like the outcome, but to say that one vote doesn't count is wrong when the millions that "don't count" are added up.
More so under PR, I may add.

ddraver

Sorry, where did I say i didnt vote?

Stevo_666

ddraver wrote:

Sorry, where did I say i didnt vote?

So you don't support a party but you vote for one? Care to explain how that works?

ddraver

Tangled Metal already has done, I don't need to waste bandwith rewriting it.

Stevo_666

ddraver wrote:

Tangled Metal already has done, I don't need to waste bandwith rewriting it.

Voting for a party is the only support that really counts. And you do, That's all I need to know.

morstar

Parallels with debates involving FF here.
I vote for a party that I am not fundamentally aligned to as I live in an area with a binary choice. Like others, I do not have a party.

Stevo_666

morstar wrote:

Parallels with debates involving FF here.
I vote for a party that I am not fundamentally aligned to as I live in an area with a binary choice. Like others, I do not have a party.

Point is most of us do not agree with everything that any party has as a policy: we fend to vote for the one we are most closely aligned to.

Some people on here like to claim they have no party, probably because they think it makes them look like independent free thinkers, but bottom line is, if they vote for a party then that is their party. The only difference here is that some people flip flop between their parties.

rick_chasey

Arguably the pendulum swings too much in fptp (from one party unopposed to another) and it disenfranchises a lot of the electorate. If you live in a safe seat you may as well not have a vote.

You wonder if part of the reason the public always tends towards opposing the gov't is because the majority won't have voted for them (even before counting absentees), and whether that is a factor in the hostile, sound bite driven, intellectually absent political discourse. Why would a decent technocrat be useful in that process? It might be why we get such dross as MPs.

The majority didn't vote for the leading party and the leading party doesn't need to extend articulate and intellectually rigorous defence of their policies since they can do as they please.

I honestly think the anti-intellectualism within uk and US politics is mainly structural.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

Arguably the pendulum swings too much in fptp (from one party unopposed to another) and it disenfranchises a lot of the electorate. If you live in a safe seat you may as well not have a vote.

Not necessarilly so. Take Knowsley as an example. 73.4% Labour to 10.38% conservative. Safe?
But there was only a 52.1% turnout. If the other 47.9% had voted Conservative then they would have had an 11,881 majority.
People who do not vote have no right of complaint.

rick_chasey

:roll:

ddraver

Stevo 666 wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Tangled Metal already has done, I don't need to waste bandwith rewriting it.

Voting for a party is the only support that really counts. And you do, That's all I need to know.

explains a lot about this thread...

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

:roll:

Good point, well argued.

rick_chasey

It's a diversionary argument that misses the point entirely.

Sometimes stuff is badly enough out of whack that to argue is futile. It's just another rabbit hole to distract from the original point.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's a diversionary argument that misses the point entirely.

Sometimes stuff is badly enough out of whack that to argue is futile. It's just another rabbit hole to distract from the original point.

Not really. A "safe seat" is only safe if everyone has voted. If there is a low turn out then it being presumed safe is merely an assumption that could be proven wrong if people got off their backsides and voted.

rick_chasey

Eugh.

This is my point. It's so lacking in common sense it's diverting the argument.

If you can't see it you're not capable of having a proper discussion on it.

It's a straw man and a bad one at that.

mamba80

i ve just read through your last few posts Rick and i dont see what your on about.....

Labour seem to be betting on getting all these people who dont vote, out voting for them.... the Tories seem to be going the other way and trying to reduce the electorate, this seems to tally with steve0s posts.

rick_chasey

How on earth did you get that from my posts?

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

If you live in a safe seat you may as well not have a vote.

I thought this point was fairly clear. And wrong.