The Politics Thread 2019

[1of4]

37 minutes ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

Does the size of the conservative majority now reduce the influence of Rees-Mogg and his band of horrific headbangers in the ERG? The less say they have in matters the better.

Depends where you think Johnson stands, relatively to the ERG. It could mean that they have even more sway in the direction taken by the conservative party.

[Highgate]

5 hours ago, maxjam said:

The current system is broken imo, did I read that only a small percentage (11?) of seats have actually changed parties in recent times?  If you vote for someone other than the winner in your constituency your vote is worthless.  You can argue for tactical voting, the Brexit Party picked up a lot of votes to kill Labour majorities in a lot of areas without actually winning a seat for example but if I'm gonna vote I want it to be for something I believe in not to stop something I don't.

Yes I've always advocated PR, your vote counts towards a total pool of votes rather than only counting if your constituent wins but after giving it further thought, this would be equally as bad.  Cities would dominate rural areas, the South would dominate the North so thats not fair either imo.  I don't really have any answers other than there are some good arguments for the Electoral College in the US and a similar principle would apply here.

I agree entirely that the FPTP system is a broken and inadequate. It distorts the democratic wishes of the population twice over.  Firstly after an election, when all the votes are counted, it serves to increase the share of seat to the largest parties relative to their share of the vote and therefore diminish the seats won by the smaller parties.  Secondly, voters tend not to even bother voting for the smaller parties. because they know they is no chance they'll win the seat.  So FPTP is profoundly undemocratic, but there doesn't seem to be much appetite for changing it in the UK at the moment.

Can't agree with your second paragraph.  I have no idea why you believe areas with larger populations shouldn't carry more weight on election day than areas with smaller populations.  Surely that's the very essence of democracy.....majority rules. 

[alexxxxx]

15 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I guess my concern is similar to that of late stage capitalism, in which a small number of mega companies control all the power.  

If you know you only have to convince the population of (potentially a few) cities to vote for you where is the need to invest in other parts of the country. 

I've not really thought it through properly yet, just coming to realization that if we were to ever change from a first past the post system a great deal of thought would have to be put into it and a pure PR system might be equally as bad if not worse.

Yeah but that's the problem, people vote in their best interests.

I could make the same argument about why should the big cities be ruled by regional seats.

Everyones vote should be equal regardless of where you live. You're making the argument that certain views from different areas are intrinsically more important than others. 

[GboroRam]

46 minutes ago, GenBr said:

Being for or against Brexit has nothing to do with whether people "feel European". Leaving the EU is not the same as leaving Europe.  

You don't think there's a sense amongst young people that they have an affinity with the continent, and older people definitely feel that GB is a discrete entity separate from the mainland? I certainly do, hence the rise in WW2 "Dunkirk spirit" type of contributions to social media. The anti German/Merkel sentiment was tangible at times. 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

Got dragged out against my original intentions, as it was the last chance I’ll get to see some of my uni mates for over a month. 

I’ve told you that I think there’s a huge contextual difference between the two. I don’t think it’s worth spending hours going back and forth for us to not move an inch.

This would be the same Diane Abbott who believes ' Blond haired, blue eyed nurses from Finland' have no place working for the NHS. You could be getting a few more of these .  The tolerance of her 'views' is one of the reasons I turned from Labour after supporting them till I was in my thirties.

[alexxxxx]

5 minutes ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

This would be the same Diane Abbott who believes ' Blond haired, blue eyed nurses from Finland' have no place working for the NHS. You could be getting a few more of these .  The tolerance of her 'views' is one of the reasons I turned from Labour after supporting them till I was in my thirties

Obviously a ridiculous divisive view written in 1996 in a local newspaper. Not unlike the ones written more recently by our prime minister. 

[ossieram]

1 minute ago, alexxxxx said:

Obviously a ridiculous divisive view written in 1996 in a local newspaper. Not unlike the ones written more recently by our prime minister. 

Has she changed her mind then?

 

[alexxxxx]

1 minute ago, ossieram said:

Has she changed her mind then?

 

Dunno ask her

[ossieram]

1 minute ago, alexxxxx said:

Dunno ask her

Ok. I'll pop round later.

[Highgate]

4 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

Maybe - although you're the only remainer I know who is admitting they thought that before the result last night. I guess a lot (like me) are coming to terms with that being the only positve to take right now.

Agreed

Did I hear right (I may have not been concentrating) but was there a suggestion from the SNP/Stugeron that they would go ahead with IndyRef2 even if the government refused to sanction it? Could get a bit tasty north of the border too if they go into Catalan style illegal referendum territory

That's one way of bolstering support for independence in Scotland.  Refuse Scotland a second referendum and they will, quite naturally, resent that and want independence even more.  Any indication that London is blocking Scottish independence will be an absolute gift to the SNP.

A lot depends on the 'hardness' of the eventual Brexit too.  If it's a very hard Brexit, then Scotland will probably off anyway, regardless of how Westminster handles their referendum demand.

Meanwhile in N.Ireland it will be interesting to gauge the reaction of the Unionists to Johnson's betrayal of them.

[GenBr]

18 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

You don't think there's a sense amongst young people that they have an affinity with the continent, and older people definitely feel that GB is a discrete entity separate from the mainland? I certainly do, hence the rise in WW2 "Dunkirk spirit" type of contributions to social media. The anti German/Merkel sentiment was tangible at times. 

I am in the group "young person" and no i don't get that sense from my fellow youth anywhere outside of London. I work in London and some have the view you espose (but not all - we arent robots), but in my experience of the area i live in Derby its the complete opposite.

We must move in different circles, because i certainly nothing like you describe regarding Dunkirk spirit - although i barely use social media. Its probably something cringey my parents would post. 

My point remains though - leaving the EU isnot the same as leaving Europe.

36 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I guess my concern is similar to that of late stage capitalism, in which a small number of mega companies control all the power.  

If you know you only have to convince the population of (potentially a few) cities to vote for you where is the need to invest in other parts of the country. 

I've not really thought it through properly yet, just coming to realization that if we were to ever change from a first past the post system a great deal of thought would have to be put into it and a pure PR system might be equally as bad if not worse.

That already happens now. Tony Blairs Labour government assumed the north would back them in perpetuity after Thatcher and so did very little to help them. They instead focused on investment in London and the south to try and build their support base there. This has now backfired spectacularly, but the Tories wont help the North either.

Most major infrastructure projects under Labour and the Tories are to serve London and the South east. It doesnt really matter what happens in the rest of the country.

There are only a few swing states they have to target anyway. Most of the southern seats have never and will never change allegiance. 

[maxjam]

25 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Yeah but that's the problem, people vote in their best interests.

I could make the same argument about why should the big cities be ruled by regional seats.

Everyones vote should be equal regardless of where you live. You're making the argument that certain views from different areas are intrinsically more important than others. 

No, I'm trying to make the opposite point. 

I know what I'm saying sounds counter-intuitive, but its the reason the Electoral Collage was put in place in the US as per the third paragraph of the wiki;

Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote

Its validity has been bought into question lately as Trump lost the popular vote - but then everything Trump does is bought into question.

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, GenBr said:

That already happens now. Tony Blairs Labour government assumed the north would back them in perpetuity after Thatcher and so did very little to help them. They instead focused on investment in London and the south to try and build their support base there. This has now backfired spectacularly, but the Tories wont help the North either.

Most major infrastructure projects under Labour and the Tories are to serve London and the South east. It doesnt really matter what happens in the rest of the country.

Isn't that kinda my point though?  Labour thought the north would vote for them no matter what and turned into a middle class party.  If a PR system was in place the north would be forgotten about forever.  Now people have realised they don't have to vote the same way as their parents, if Labour want to win them back then have got to actually earn their vote rather than ignore them and assume it was a gimme.

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, jono said:

Aye, but what if Labour won, did what it said it would do, and we still ended up with Brexit ? This was entirely possible especially with Labours stance, or lack of one

The old Brexit thread was removed in the great cull, but I stated there several times that I would have voted Leave if I was guaranteed a deal negotiated by a left of centre party.

I still have a nagging doubt that a Tory Brexit will be an excuse to extract more money from the public purse into the pockets of private enterprise and screw the general public. Given the past 10 years I don't understand why that isn't at the back of everyone's minds.

 

But still - we lost I have to be optimistic that they will do the right thing 

[alexxxxx]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

No, I'm trying to make the opposite point. 

I know what I'm saying sounds counter-intuitive, but its the reason the Electoral Collage was put in place in the US as per the third paragraph of the wiki;

Supporters of the Electoral College argue that it is fundamental to American federalism, that it requires candidates to appeal to voters outside large cities, increases the political influence of small states, preserves the two-party system, and makes the electoral outcome appear more legitimate than that of a nationwide popular vote

Its validity has been bought into question lately as Trump lost the popular vote - but then everything Trump does is bought into question.

Your view seems to be that certain votes from number of seats' views need special protection because they are of a different socioeconomic or geographical makeup from some others

I don't care about American politics I only care about the UK. We have a completely different national identity, government structure and party diversity. We aren't a federation of nations or constituencies.

[alexxxxx]

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Isn't that kinda my point though?  Labour thought the north would vote for them no matter what and turned into a middle class party.  If a PR system was in place the north would be forgotten about forever.  Now people have realised they don't have to vote the same way as their parents, if Labour want to win them back then have got to actually earn their vote rather than ignore them and assume it was a gimme.

Playing devil's advocate here, but why should the North count for the same than the south when there's more people in the south? 

[Stive Pesley]

16 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Isn't that kinda my point though?  Labour thought the north would vote for them no matter what and turned into a middle class party.  If a PR system was in place the north would be forgotten about forever.  Now people have realised they don't have to vote the same way as their parents, if Labour want to win them back then have got to actually earn their vote rather than ignore them and assume it was a gimme.

PR is all well and good until you get actual fascists elected -but then maybe I find myself agreeing with your point on free speech - it's probably better better to have the extremists in plain sight having to argue their case in good faith in a democratic setting than have them under cover and identifying with Brexit Party/Tommy Robinson factions where they are only actually welcome because they bolster the numbers. Probably made that point badly but I think we're actually converging on ideas regarding electoral methodology

I think that ultimately the solution will be to have direct democracy. It may take a while but with the advances in technology and engagement we have now - how can we not end up scrapping FPTP and having a connected general public voting directly from their phones/computers on every bill that comes up for consideration? Going back to the point about the archaic "send a man on a horse to London" system we retain to this day - that was done because we couldn't have direct democracy - not because we didn't want it

No idea on the timescales, but I'll be amazed if we aren't there in the next 20 years

 

Edit: Meant to say - obviously that would require everyone to be connected to the internet. All we need now is for a party to promise free broadband to all......oh

[maxjam]

9 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Your view seems to be that certain votes from number of seats' views need special protection because they are of a different socioeconomic or geographical makeup from some others

I don't care about American politics I only care about the UK. We have a completely different national identity, government structure and party diversity. We aren't a federation of nations or constituencies.

I can see similarities between the UK and US and whilst I've always said I would prefer a PR system I am now having second thoughts.  Recents events have made me question myself;

1.  Referendum:  52-48 in favour of leave but only London voted remain - should they hold the rest of the country ransom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2016_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum

2.  Labour losing a lot of the north in this vote.  If we were in a PR system, they wouldn't care as they picked up a lot of London votes - end result, North falls further into decline.

 

7 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

Playing devil's advocate here, but why should the North count for the same than the south when there's more people in the south? 

Because we're one country?  Share the wealth.

 

6 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

PR is all well and good until you get actual fascists elected -but then maybe I find myself agreeing with your point on free speech - it's probably better better to have the extremists in plain sight having to argue their case in good faith in a democratic setting than have them under cover and identifying with Brexit Party/Tommy Robinson factions where they are only actually welcome because they bolster the numbers. Probably made that point badly but I think we're actually converging on ideas regarding electoral methodology

I think that ultimately the solution will be to have direct democracy. It may take a while but with the advances in technology and engagement we have now - how can we not end up scrapping FPTP and having a connected general public voting directly from their phones/computers on every bill that comes up for consideration? Going back to the point about the archaic "send a man on a horse to London" system we retain to this day - that was done because we couldn't have direct democracy - not because we didn't want it

No idea on the timescales, but I'll be amazed if we aren't there in the next 20 years

First paragraph, thats a concern but I don't agree with the far left telling us they are on the rise and everywhere.  The number of facists in the UK is tiny, even relatively mainstream parties like UKIP get a tiny number of votes.  And yes I agree that we should expose them in plain sight so we know where they are!

Second paragraph, re. my previous posts I think a lot of us agree that FPTP is dated now and I'm just having second thoughts about championing PR.  Direct democracyin the 21st century sounds a lot more appealing.  I'm using these posts to question myself rather than just blindly advocating PR.  Now I'm actually thinking about it, its not the solution I thought it was.  Gonna have to do some research...

 

15 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

Edit: Meant to say - obviously that would require everyone to be connected to the internet. All we need now is for a party to promise free broadband to all......oh

There's always next time!  Meanwhile watch ep#6 of The Mandalorian it will take your mind of things for a bit.  Its very good...

[GB SPORTS]

18 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

PR is all well and good until you get actual fascists elected -but then maybe I find myself agreeing with your point on free speech - it's probably better better to have the extremists in plain sight having to argue their case in good faith in a democratic setting than have them under cover and identifying with Brexit Party/Tommy Robinson factions where they are only actually welcome because they bolster the numbers. Probably made that point badly but I think we're actually converging on ideas regarding electoral methodology

I think that ultimately the solution will be to have direct democracy. It may take a while but with the advances in technology and engagement we have now - how can we not end up scrapping FPTP and having a connected general public voting directly from their phones/computers on every bill that comes up for consideration? Going back to the point about the archaic "send a man on a horse to London" system we retain to this day - that was done because we couldn't have direct democracy - not because we didn't want it

No idea on the timescales, but I'll be amazed if we aren't there in the next 20 years

 

Edit: Meant to say - obviously that would require everyone to be connected to the internet. All we need now is for a party to promise free broadband to all......oh

Free broadband who said that? Don't you there are people using foodbanks or they would starve? Surely it would be better to spend the £40 billion on free broadband on food vouchers for the needy.

[Stive Pesley]

11 minutes ago, maxjam said:

There's always next time!  Meanwhile watch ep#6 of The Mandalorian it will take your mind of things for a bit.  Its very good...

That's the plan for later when the kids are in bed. 

It actually feels good in the light of yesterday's disappointment to be having constructive discussions and not just tearing strips for a change. Reminds us that we all actually want the same thing (a happy life and a better tomorrow) - the arguments are just about how we get there

3 points tomorrow and then we're really talking