|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 13, 2024 20:40:25 GMT
The electoral system is not the problem, political dishonesty, propaganda using lies and insinuated lies along with, in the main, pathetic political leaders and followers, is where the problem lays. Changing the system wont change people. The electoral system is the problem. Im not arrogant enough to assume I can change tens of thousands of years of the evolution of human nature and all its cons , but we can make a simple change of what is arguably the western worlds most unrepresentative political system . I dont like politicians who lie , are dishonest ,or cheat , but I would be more accepting of a liar like keir starmer getting a proportionate share of seats to his vote than I would getting 64% off the back of 20% of the electorate. You could start by dropping your bias and not calling Starmer a liar. Each party IS A BROAD CHURCH therefore a wide area of debate is covered by each Party. Given separate parties to vote for would just lead to different parties cooperating together creating a broad church of opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 13, 2024 21:08:49 GMT
That's just your opinion, change the rules then you change the vote, which doesn't mean we would not have got a Labour government. You have been whinging about Labour for probably 20 years, you found it impossible to give Labour any credit for the good they did, so its time for you to wake up and understand that you are not so much interested in changing the voting system, your real interest is to denigrate and to deselect Labour. Whats just my opinion? It's fact labour got a third of votes , 20% of the electorate , no mandate from the people , but fptp awarded them a disgraceful 64% of seats. Im happy to accept democracy , but this isnt democracy. Labour only win when we all stay at home. As. for the good labour allegedly did , I see your hero starmer is already getting to well worn excuses out that things are much worse for his government than he imagined , codeword for not following through with election promises as per normal. You will be judged on what you do during your term in power .Im looking forward to it massively. Stop looking for excuses, the electorate decide the government. So suck it up and stop whinging. The reality is that change the voting system, then encourage the unification of the different parties that emerge, i.e. create a broad church of opinion amongst voter out comes, which is exactly what we already have. I.E. each party that already exists IS A BROAD CHURCH OF OPINION. You would not be happy with any form of democracy that produced a New Labour style government. That you have already made quite clear by your limited ability to rationalise. It does seem to be the case that Labour only get a chance to show their worth when they face an opposition that is unadulterated SH*t*. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 14, 2024 8:57:42 GMT
The electoral system is the problem. Im not arrogant enough to assume I can change tens of thousands of years of the evolution of human nature and all its cons , but we can make a simple change of what is arguably the western worlds most unrepresentative political system . I dont like politicians who lie , are dishonest ,or cheat , but I would be more accepting of a liar like keir starmer getting a proportionate share of seats to his vote than I would getting 64% off the back of 20% of the electorate. You could start by dropping your bias and not calling Starmer a liar. Each party IS A BROAD CHURCH therefore a wide area of debate is covered by each Party. Given separate parties to vote for would just lead to different parties cooperating together creating a broad church of opinion. That may be true but there have to be guiding principles that they coalesce around; for arguments sake low taxes for the Tories and goodness knows what for the Labour Party but in the past Nationalisation. You may have broad churches as regards how to achieve those aims but both parties seem to have lost their core beliefs. Labour jettisoned theirs with Clause 4, the Tories discarded theirs with Truss. We now have both floundering as regards what they are and seem to regard the centre as theirs by right. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 14, 2024 9:48:18 GMT
You could start by dropping your bias and not calling Starmer a liar. Each party IS A BROAD CHURCH therefore a wide area of debate is covered by each Party. Given separate parties to vote for would just lead to different parties cooperating together creating a broad church of opinion. That may be true but there have to be guiding principles that they coalesce around; for arguments sake low taxes for the Tories and goodness knows what for the Labour Party but in the past Nationalisation. You may have broad churches as regards how to achieve those aims but both parties seem to have lost their core beliefs. Labour jettisoned theirs with Clause 4, the Tories discarded theirs with Truss. We now have both floundering as regards what they are and seem to regard the centre as theirs by right. Your post exposes your political blindness. Labour have matured beyond Clause 4, "The third way" "for the many not the few". Like it or not, that will also include yourself. A better way for the UK to be, is what it is all about. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 14, 2024 9:55:20 GMT
A metaphor for Labours policy forum? You just can't help yourself can you, totally lost in the midst of your political bias. Given the History of the Tories over the last 70 odd years one might have thought you would have known better by now. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 9:58:32 GMT
Whats just my opinion? It's fact labour got a third of votes , 20% of the electorate , no mandate from the people , but fptp awarded them a disgraceful 64% of seats. Whilst I'm in favour of PR, and agree that Labour are over represented in the same way that the Tories were in 2019, under any voting system you win under votes cast, not votes not cast. So percentage of the electorate is a red herring. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 14, 2024 10:04:11 GMT
Where votes aren't cast it signifies a breakdown of trust between the politicians and the public.
And that's not good at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 10:11:56 GMT
Where votes aren't cast it signifies a breakdown of trust between the politicians and the public. And that's not good at all. I think it's actually wider than that. I think that there is an insularisation of society. People were much more a community. Community, social centres and pubs were the centre of lives. Now people barely come out of their houses. They even have their shopping delivered. They don't talk to or know their neighbours. They don't care what's going on outside their own lives and don't follow the news. These people don't vote. I'm not sure that totally blaming it on politicians is fair. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 14, 2024 10:12:39 GMT
Where votes aren't cast it signifies a breakdown of trust between the politicians and the public. And that's not good at all. IMO the problem lays between persistent Tory failure and the persistent anti-Labour propagandists who seem to be active everywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 14, 2024 10:17:14 GMT
Whats just my opinion? It's fact labour got a third of votes , 20% of the electorate , no mandate from the people , but fptp awarded them a disgraceful 64% of seats. Whilst I'm in favour of PR, and agree that Labour are over represented in the same way that the Tories were in 2019, under any voting system you win under votes cast, not votes not cast. So percentage of the electorate is a red herring. Not if you want your voting system to retain legitimacy. If you cannot enthuse more than half the electorate to vote then you really need to look at why so many people are disenfranchised - if you want to claim a mandate that is. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 10:22:55 GMT
Whilst I'm in favour of PR, and agree that Labour are over represented in the same way that the Tories were in 2019, under any voting system you win under votes cast, not votes not cast. So percentage of the electorate is a red herring. Not if you want your voting system to retain legitimacy. If you cannot enthuse more than half the electorate to vote then you really need to look at why so many people are disenfranchised - if you want to claim a mandate that is. I think I addressed that in my subsequent post. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 14, 2024 10:28:30 GMT
Where votes aren't cast it signifies a breakdown of trust between the politicians and the public. And that's not good at all. I think it's actually wider than that. I think that there is an insularisation of society. People were much more a community. Community, social centres and pubs were the centre of lives. Now people barely come out of their houses. They even have their shopping delivered. They don't talk to or know their neighbours. They don't care what's going on outside their own lives and don't follow the news. These people don't vote. I'm not sure that totally blaming it on politicians is fair. Well it is up to the politicians to make politics relevant - because if you dont make democracy work for the people then pitchforks and barricades are a short step away. Not tackling the perception that it doesn't matter who you vote for as you can never change anything will only lead to more (violent) direct action. |
|
|
|
Post by Vinny on Jul 14, 2024 10:33:30 GMT
Successive governments have priced a lot of people out of pubs with their do goodery policies.
And Sky haven't helped either as Sky subscription costs for pubs are over £1k a month.
I'd mandate a slashing of subscription costs to £20 per month and I'd cut duty and VAT to get people back in the pubs.
Cheaper drinks mean more sales of drinks & greater tax revenue over all.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 14, 2024 13:45:20 GMT
The electoral system is the problem. Im not arrogant enough to assume I can change tens of thousands of years of the evolution of human nature and all its cons , but we can make a simple change of what is arguably the western worlds most unrepresentative political system . I dont like politicians who lie , are dishonest ,or cheat , but I would be more accepting of a liar like keir starmer getting a proportionate share of seats to his vote than I would getting 64% off the back of 20% of the electorate. You could start by dropping your bias and not calling Starmer a liar. Each party IS A BROAD CHURCH therefore a wide area of debate is covered by each Party. Given separate parties to vote for would just lead to different parties cooperating together creating a broad church of opinion. why? are we not allowed an opinion on a guy who flip flops that much and reneges on promises that he has been consistently described as a bigger liar than Boris Johnson? so whats the problem with that? We have coalitions in the Celtic nations , indeed labour are famous for getting into bed in coalitions with anyone who will have them ,even the tories on Scottish councils. Why is it ok for labour in scotland and Wales , but not England? |
|
|
|
Post by thomas on Jul 14, 2024 13:52:56 GMT
Whats just my opinion? It's fact labour got a third of votes , 20% of the electorate , no mandate from the people , but fptp awarded them a disgraceful 64% of seats. Im happy to accept democracy , but this isnt democracy. Labour only win when we all stay at home. As. for the good labour allegedly did , I see your hero starmer is already getting to well worn excuses out that things are much worse for his government than he imagined , codeword for not following through with election promises as per normal. You will be judged on what you do during your term in power .Im looking forward to it massively. Stop looking for excuses, the electorate decide the government. So suck it up and stop whinging. there's no excuses , and no personal opinion , im merely giving you fact. FPTP gave us a labour government. It must be hard for you that starmer led labour is less popular than Corbyn led labour in terms of vote numbers. |
|
