Jump to content
David

The Politics Thread 2019

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

One person - one vote. It's got a nice symmetry. First past the post for preference, but PR if you really want. JUST VOTE.

I am very wary of some people stating 'our politics is broken' right now as I  wonder what will ride in on the back of that if they get elected.

Sorry you haven't felt involved enough in the GEs you have voted in, maybe you should ask for the winning MPs you did vote for to come round your house so you can film some kind of selfie goal celebration with them.😀

One is my current MP (Sefton Central), a party yes-man from Kent, who I didn't really want to vote for. I wouldn't let him across the threshold.

One went on to lose his seat (Brecon and Radnor) in 2015 in the Clegg-inspired Lib-Dem suicide.

One was the fellow who beat Portillo in 1997 but lost his seat and was parachuted into a safe Labour seat (Liverpool West Derby) and I doubt he would have lowered himself to come into our house even if he was careless enough to brave the streets of Norris Green.

Much is made of an MP's connection to their constituency. Of the 3 above, only one had any history in their constituency. 

Our system is completely ducked up. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I think the genius method that won the vote is also the downfall of Brexit. 

By being ambiguous about what Brexit is, broad support was formed. It was an emotional vote for many, not one based on actual actions. 

Now the remain government are pushed into delivering Brexit, they've been offered so many ways to avoid making any decisions, as it wasn't defined what they were expected to do. 

If the leave campaigns had tried to define what Brexit looks like, I think a number of leave voters would have disagreed with the vision. Whether it would have changed the outcome is hard to call, as the vote was more emotional than anything. I think it probably would have changed the outcome. 

When you think back to straight after the vote, the leave campaigns refused to discuss how Brexit would be delivered, saying that wasn't their responsibility. It's almost as if they knew that it was going to be a poostorm. 

Personally don't agree but understand your opinion.

Leaving was always going to be chicken and egg situation. How could anyone present what the future would look like, when the future couldn't be planned properly until we left? The only way we could have been certain would have been opting for No Deal from the outset. However, this should have been kept on the table as our default position, not surrender at the earliest opportunity. 

The Leave campaign was just that, a campaign. How could they discuss how Brexit would be delivered, they had absolutely no say over it.

Now if TM had set up some sort of think tank born out of the Leave campaign then they would be accountable. As it was she took it all on herself knowing that she didn't really believe in what she was doing and could try and keep us tied as closely to the EU as possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

One is my current MP (Sefton Central), a party yes-man from Kent, who I didn't really want to vote for. I wouldn't let him across the threshold.

One went on to lose his seat (Brecon and Radnor) in 2015 in the Clegg-inspired Lib-Dem suicide.

One was the fellow who beat Portillo in 1997 but lost his seat and was parachuted into a safe Labour seat (Liverpool West Derby) and I doubt he would have lowered himself to come into our house even if he was careless enough to brave the streets of Norris Green.

Much is made of an MP's connection to their constituency. Of the 3 above, only one had any history in their constituency. 

Our system is completely ducked up. 

I have had slightly more luck.

My current MP is my brother-in-law's daughter's tennis coach's husband, who makes wonderful canapes and has been coaching me in the use of the folk mandolin.

The one before that was a personal friend of my mother, and helped her considerably buying property on the Black Sea coast of Bulgaria while recruiting a CEO for her chain of wallaby sanctuaries. He is always good for a couple of spare Last Night of the Proms tickets and also helped me fit the bell on my new bike.

😀😀

 

I would have either of them before a lectern thumper frothing at the mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, WhiteHorseRam said:

Now I am shocked, appalled and also horrified.

Your vote always counts.

Use it or lose it.

I've always voted, however I disagree with the statement, 'Your vote always counts'. IMO what is true is, 'Your vote is always counted'. With the first past the post system the only votes that actually count are those cast for the winning candidate in a constituency. 

We're obviously in a political mess in this country but on the positive side at least we don't have it as bad as in the USA - Clinton got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump but still lost!! (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-3-million-popular-vote-donald-trump-us-election-a7487901.html)

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, 1967Ram said:

I've always voted, however I disagree with the statement, 'Your vote always counts'. IMO what is true is, 'Your vote is always counted'. With the first past the post system the only votes that actually count are those cast for the winning candidate in a constituency. 

We're obviously in a political mess in this country but on the positive side at least we don't have it as bad as in the USA - Clinton got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump but still lost!! (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-3-million-popular-vote-donald-trump-us-election-a7487901.html)

 

In my opinion, it's even less than that. The only votes that count are the ones in marginal constituencies. Hence the focus over many years on issues important to swing voters in marginal seats. And the reason why Labour abandoned its core support in working class areas (assuming they would vote Labour anyway - which turned out to be true until recently), not to mention why Tories have absolutely no idea how people live outside that very narrow grouping.

If you live in a constituency where the sitting MP holds a large majority, any opposition to that majority is not a vote that counts. You are, in fact, democratically sidelined. Only about 70 seats changed hands at the last General Election (that's just over 10%). The rest ended up with the same face or the same party. Millions of people who are left politically impotent by dint of living in a particular place.

People talk about the Westminster bubble. It's not that - it's a Bedford, Hastings and Warwick bubble. These are taken from official lists of Labour and Conservative 'targets' - the existence of which tends to illuminate my point.

Conversely, as a sitting MP, you're on easy street if you are in a safe seat (and with the right qualifications - if you know the right people or went to the right school - you can expect to be parachuted into one). The safe seat is the modern equivalent of the rotten borough. Even someone as wretchedly obnoxious as Neil Hamilton managed to get elected 3 times in Tatton. And once the protest against him had died away, the seat returned to the same party with a different face, with similarly huge majorities.

Until first-past-the-post is thrown in the dustbin where it belongs, most of us will never have votes that count.

 

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

In my opinion, it's even less than that. The only votes that count are the ones in marginal constituencies. Hence the focus over many years on issues important to swing voters in marginal seats. And the reason why Labour abandoned its core support in working class areas (assuming they would vote Labour anyway - which turned out to be true until recently), not to mention why Tories have absolutely no idea how people live outside that very narrow grouping.

If you live in a constituency where the sitting MP holds a large majority, any opposition to that majority is not a vote that counts. You are, in fact, democratically sidelined. Only about 70 seats changed hands at the last General Election (that's just over 10%). The rest ended up with the same face or the same party. Millions of people who are left politically impotent by dint of living in a particular place.

People talk about the Westminster bubble. It's not that - it's a Bedford, Hastings and Warwick bubble. These are taken from official lists of Labour and Conservative 'targets' - the existence of which tends to illuminate my point.

Conversely, as a sitting MP, you're on easy street if you are in a safe seat (and with the right qualifications - if you know the right people or went to the right school - you can expect to be parachuted into one). The safe seat is the modern equivalent of the rotten borough. Even someone as wretchedly obnoxious as Neil Hamilton managed to get elected 3 times in Tatton. And once the protest against him had died away, the seat returned to the same party with a different face, with similarly huge majorities.

Until first-past-the-post is thrown in the dustbin where it belongs, most of us will never have votes that count.

 

For the last 19 years I've lived in constituencies that haven't had a candidate from the party I want to support. 

How does my vote count? 

Share this post


Link to post

I lived in Rushcliffe for close to 15 years.  Since 1973 there's only ever been one election period where conservative hasn't been the overwhelming majority. Despite slightly coming around to Kenneth Clarke, I've never voted for him, nor would I ever.

I've stood in queues at polling stations 6 or 7 times knowing that my vote is a wasted vote.

The "I'm alright jack" brigade have ruled over West Bridgford for as long as I've been alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

 

I'm just genuinely interested to know what the Conservatives have done that constitutes Islamophobia. 

How about the darling of the grassroots and bookies' favourite to become the next leader of the party comparing Muslim women to letter boxes?

Edited by DarkFruitsRam7

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

 

We've come a long way from joining the common market...

Take him to court.

Also, Verhofstadt does a very good Klopp impression. 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, 1967Ram said:

We're obviously in a political mess in this country but on the positive side at least we don't have it as bad as in the USA - Clinton got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump but still lost!! (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hillary-clinton-3-million-popular-vote-donald-trump-us-election-a7487901.html)

Yes but if the popular vote won in the us they could campaign in about four states and win

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

How about the darling of the grassroots and bookies' favourite to become the next leader of the party comparing Muslim women to letter boxes?

How about it?

What has that got to do with Islamophobia? 

If people can't tell the difference between a joke (albeit a very stupid one) and Islamaphobia then I pity them.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

How about it?

What has that got to do with Islamophobia? 

If people can't tell the difference between a joke (albeit a very stupid one) and Islamaphobia then I pity them.

A prospective prime minister should not be making that sort of joke if he wants to govern a country that is experiencing a fair amount of racial/religious tension. It’s something you’d expect from Family Guy.

On a somewhat similar issue, how about his use of the phrase ‘flag-waving piccaninnies’? And he was still appointed foreign secretary!

Edited by DarkFruitsRam7

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Joe. said:

Yes but if the popular vote won in the us they could campaign in about four states and win

Provided you believe that each person is of equal value then that would be ok. More than 50% of the population would live in state where campaigning actively took place.  The situation as it stands is that presidential candidates only campaign in the few swing states. 

Also I don't think it's true, regardless of how much candidates campaign no Democrat or Republic is going to win the whole state, the other side will always get their percentage of votes.  Meaning candidates will have to campaign in many more states in order to secure the presidency  Of course they would concentrate on the states with the larger populations ....but isn't that what elections are about, trying to appeal to the majority of people ?

 

Share this post


Link to post

Should there be a call for a second referendum?

The country were given the chance to make every vote count but we didn't take it. Maybe because at the time of the first the first referendum, the country's political landscape was generally divided by the two main parties. So people probably voted to keep the first past the post system, fearing  proportional representation, could possibly weaken their party's influence in Parliament giving power to the other party.

Recently with peoples disillusionment of the current politicians, the major parties and with the emergence of new parties. Maybe a vote for PR could win if a second referendum was held.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

In my opinion, it's even less than that. The only votes that count are the ones in marginal constituencies. Hence the focus over many years on issues important to swing voters in marginal seats. And the reason why Labour abandoned its core support in working class areas (assuming they would vote Labour anyway - which turned out to be true until recently), not to mention why Tories have absolutely no idea how people live outside that very narrow grouping.

If you live in a constituency where the sitting MP holds a large majority, any opposition to that majority is not a vote that counts. You are, in fact, democratically sidelined. Only about 70 seats changed hands at the last General Election (that's just over 10%). The rest ended up with the same face or the same party. Millions of people who are left politically impotent by dint of living in a particular place.

People talk about the Westminster bubble. It's not that - it's a Bedford, Hastings and Warwick bubble. These are taken from official lists of Labour and Conservative 'targets' - the existence of which tends to illuminate my point.

Conversely, as a sitting MP, you're on easy street if you are in a safe seat (and with the right qualifications - if you know the right people or went to the right school - you can expect to be parachuted into one). The safe seat is the modern equivalent of the rotten borough. Even someone as wretchedly obnoxious as Neil Hamilton managed to get elected 3 times in Tatton. And once the protest against him had died away, the seat returned to the same party with a different face, with similarly huge majorities.

Until first-past-the-post is thrown in the dustbin where it belongs, most of us will never have votes that count.

 

Brilliant post. I don't imagine anyone on here would disagree with this post. I'd like to hear someone argue against what you have written. I guess there is something around how been a local MP means something sometimes.

Also a joke how when a new party gets into power, they then set about changing constituency boundaries to make sure they are in a better position next time.

Crazy how Ukip won 17% of votes in GE before Brexit (or maybe one before that) but got no seats, whereas SNP got loads of seats with much fewer votes.

I obviously disagree with Ukip but 17% of the country deserve some representation. Likewise you get SNP and DUP with a big say in how the UK is run but who are far more interested in their local issues. A more popular vote way of winning may mean these smaller parties find more common ground and maybe become part of something bigger.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

A prospective prime minister should not be making that sort of joke if he wants to govern a country that is experiencing a fair amount of racial/religious tension. It’s something you’d expect from Family Guy.

On a somewhat similar issue, how about his use of the phrase ‘flag-waving piccaninnies’? And he was still appointed foreign secretary!

OK fair comments, still not sure what either has to do with Islamophobia though.

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Norman said:

Take him to court.

Also, Verhofstadt does a very good Klopp impression. 

No, it was just a projection not a promise.

All of the Remain voters were clever enough to know the truth.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.