The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

19 hours ago, ml1dch said:

I also fail to see why he would personally give a shit one way or the other.

If he's there to enact the policy, he's there because he won via FPTP. And a reformed voting system makes it more, rather than less likely that he gets to govern for a second term. Beyond that - why does it really matter to him? 

The only reason I can imagine him being against it is because he thinks it's a vote loser.

The argument I heard Angela Rayner make was that she personally isn't convinced by PR, because looking at places abroad and the EU parliament that have it, it's been a way in for far right parties, which she doesn't want to happen here. She wasn't kind of hard and fast on it, but sort of inclined against/unconvinced on PR for that reason.

[ml1dch]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

The argument I heard Angela Rayner make was that she personally isn't convinced by PR, because looking at places abroad and the EU parliament that have it, it's been a way in for far right parties, which she doesn't want to happen here. She wasn't kind of hard and fast on it, but sort of inclined against/unconvinced on PR for that reason.

Whereas everyone in this country knows that they best way for the lunatic fringes to get into positions of unfathomable power is to just take over the mainstream parties from the inside. 

[meregreen]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

The argument I heard Angela Rayner make was that she personally isn't convinced by PR, because looking at places abroad and the EU parliament that have it, it's been a way in for far right parties, which she doesn't want to happen here. She wasn't kind of hard and fast on it, but sort of inclined against/unconvinced on PR for that reason.

I can see that reasoning, but simply don’t go along with it. The most important principle here, is that FPTP is undemocratic. Parliament should fairly represent the will of the people in its make up, warts and all. If the price of having an elected chamber that accurately represents the peoples vote proportionally, is having a few turds in there, then so be it. Democracy is not something that should be gerrymandered to simply keep out someone you don’t like, if it is, then that isn’t democracy.

[blandy]

48 minutes ago, meregreen said:

I can see that reasoning, but simply don’t go along with it. The most important principle here, is that FPTP is undemocratic. Parliament should fairly represent the will of the people in its make up, warts and all. If the price of having an elected chamber that accurately represents the peoples vote proportionally, is having a few turds in there, then so be it. Democracy is not something that should be gerrymandered to simply keep out someone you don’t like, if it is, then that isn’t democracy.

Yep. Same here.

[ml1dch]

(although they said similar in 1997. But still, it's a start)

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

3 hours ago, blandy said:

it's been a way in for far right parties

Not sure if 100% relevant but, In Holland we have amongst others "Gert Wilders".  I wont write the stuff he says in Parliament as it would make your eyes bleed.

She (Raynor) might be onto something though.  You inadvertently give people like him a big voice is a bigger possibility.  Never an outright majority here either,  waste of time really. 

There is a pet party,  tree party and things like that.  Maybe 100 parties as well,  its well cheap to start one. 

 

 

[bickster]

5 hours ago, Mozzavfc said:

Isn't that already the plan? Great British Railways is supposed to be taking over everything other than TFL and Merseyrail in 2023

https://gbrtt.co.uk/

Nope, you are confusing infrastructure with train operating companies. The infrastructure is already in public hands. GBR is just a reorganisation and rebranding of Network Rail

[NurembergVillan]

[magnkarl]

12 hours ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Not sure if 100% relevant but, In Holland we have amongst others "Gert Wilders".  I wont write the stuff he says in Parliament as it would make your eyes bleed.

She (Raynor) might be onto something though.  You inadvertently give people like him a big voice is a bigger possibility.  Never an outright majority here either,  waste of time really. 

There is a pet party,  tree party and things like that.  Maybe 100 parties as well,  its well cheap to start one. 

 

 

Though I agree that Gert Wilders is a terrifying example of what could happen with PR, I counter that argument with Boris Bloody Johnson and Jeremy Flippin Corbyn. The societies that top most indexes in the world on democracy are PR democracies. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland etc. There's some right plonkers in the Danish and Norwegian parliaments but they do add weight on policy making. An example is the 'Red' party in Norway which is polling around 10%, that have real heavy importance when it comes to keeping politicians honest. Norway's had scandal after scandal with politicians lying to get free commuting housing  when in reality they were renting out houses and owning properties within 40km of the parliament, and if it weren't for the socialists in the red party this would most likely be brushed under the carpet. In Denmark the outer right parties serve a function that they ensure that the government doesn't just leave the doors open to totally uncontrolled immigration. Denmark has tough integration laws because of it and polling shows that the people that settle in Denmark feel more integrated with society than in i.e. Sweden. 

Democracy doesn't mean that we just ignore the fringes, the fringes often get too large if they're just kept in the dark (Johnson, Farage, Trump).

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Though I agree that Gert Wilders is a terrifying example of what could happen with PR, I counter that argument with Boris Bloody Johnson and Jeremy Flippin Corbyn. The societies that top most indexes in the world on democracy are PR democracies. Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Iceland etc. There's some right plonkers in the Danish and Norwegian parliaments but they do add weight on policy making. An example is the 'Red' party in Norway which is polling around 10%, that have real heavy importance when it comes to keeping politicians honest. Norway's had scandal after scandal with politicians lying to get free commuting housing  when in reality they were renting out houses and owning properties within 40km of the parliament, and if it weren't for the socialists in the red party this would most likely be brushed under the carpet. In Denmark the outer right parties serve a function that they ensure that the government doesn't just leave the doors open to totally uncontrolled immigration. Denmark has tough integration laws because of it and polling shows that the people that settle in Denmark feel more integrated with society than in i.e. Sweden. 

Democracy doesn't mean that we just ignore the fringes, the fringes often get too large if they're just kept in the dark (Johnson, Farage, Trump).

Good post mate,  both things have problems I suppose.  The Red party thing is interesting,  its like a safety net to stop it going in the wrong direction even though it gets only a small %.

[magnkarl]

32 minutes ago, Amsterdam_Neil_D said:

Good post mate,  both things have problems I suppose.  The Red party thing is interesting,  its like a safety net to stop it going in the wrong direction even though it gets only a small %.

It's interesting as it makes the big dogs have to work with the smaller ones. It means that no policy is ever too zealous in either direction. Too conservative? Stopped by the left wing. Too lefty? Stopped by the right wing. It's the way a healthy democracy should work. Not like ours where both main parties are generally conservative and have majorities in their ruling periods that means that they don't need much buy in from anyone else. Coalition governments are a good thing as things are thought over more.

[Davkaus]

And Truss has got another year and a half to drag them further and further into the mud, unless the party start attacking each other look a pack of feral dogs again. Wonderful.

People are going to feel the pain over the next year - the best thing for the country in the short term would be a moderate tory taking over to stem the damage and help mitigate the cost of living crisis. But we might as well wish for a gold-shitting unicorn, so the next best outcome is them continuing on this path, doing so much damage they're unelectable for a generation. Crack on burning the place to the ground you self-serving words removed.

[Panto_Villan]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

It's interesting as it makes the big dogs have to work with the smaller ones. It means that no policy is ever too zealous in either direction. Too conservative? Stopped by the left wing. Too lefty? Stopped by the right wing. It's the way a healthy democracy should work. Not like ours where both main parties are generally conservative and have majorities in their ruling periods that means that they don't need much buy in from anyone else. Coalition governments are a good thing as things are thought over more.

It’s an interesting discussion. To be honest I’m not really sure where I stand on the matter but the main point in favour of FPTP that politicians don’t bring up (because it sounds self-serving) is it reliably produces governments that are capable of taking action.

Theres quite a few nations with PR that go without governments for years at a time because nobody ever wins an outright majority and coalitions can be hard to agree on. I think Belgium went three years without a government recently, maybe?

Brexit has basically paralysed the government since it happened - imagine that, but forever. That’s the possible potential downside of a PR system to go alongside the advantages of better representation.

[Davkaus]

2 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

It’s an interesting discussion. To be honest I’m not really sure where I stand on the matter but the main point in favour of FPTP that politicians don’t bring up (because it sounds self-serving) is it reliably produces governments that are capable of taking action.

 

You're right it's arguably the main "benefit" of FPTP, but is it really one? Is it really democratic for a minority government to be given such an overwhelming landslide victory that they can do absolutely anything they want without any control from the rest of parliament? To me, enabling a tyranny of the minority is far from a benefit. If the elected government gets such a small mandate, perhaps they shouldn't be able to get too much done, other than things that they can form a concensus on, that just seems like democracy to me.

I think the only benefit of FPTP that I'm actually sold on is that you get the local candidate you voted for, whereas the alternatives with their ranked lists, etc, are far from ideal. The rest of the alleged benefits of FPTP seem distinctly undemocratic.

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

Theres quite a few nations with PR that go without governments for years at a time because nobody ever wins an outright majority and coalitions can be hard to agree on. I think Belgium went three years without a government recently, maybe?

Not having a Government isn't necessarily a bad thing. We could do without one right now

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I think the only benefit of FPTP that I'm actually sold on is that you get the local candidate you voted for, whereas the alternatives with their ranked lists, etc, are far from ideal. The rest of the alleged benefits of FPTP seem distinctly undemocratic.

IMO thats part of the role of a second chamber, just in my idea of how a UK democracy should work but you'd do it on a more regional PR basis unlike the current constituency basis. Say for example 5 MPs elected from the larger Meseyside Region. So everyone has a choice of local representatives.

[Chindie]

PR discussion is a complete dead end. It'll be ditched immediately. Labour are not going to bring it in, and the bad press will follow swiftly if they even whisper they will truly consider it, which will have Starmer scurry back to his burrow in a U-turn so fast it'll be almost like they never even said PR to begin with.

[LondonLax]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

IMO thats part of the role of a second chamber, just in my idea of how a UK democracy should work but you'd do it on a more regional PR basis unlike the current constituency basis. Say for example 5 MPs elected from the larger Meseyside Region. So everyone has a choice of local representatives.

Australia has a pretty good balance with a lower house voted on by preference voting (local member must have been 1st/2nd choice of at least 50% of the electorate to get their seat) then PR for the upper house who review laws.

[ml1dch]

Good line.

 

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Would it not be simpler and easier to make everyone vote ?

You can pay 10 pounds not to vote if you want ?

Then it is super fair, no ?