UK Politics

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I'd say if Labour have a single digit majority, or are single digits off a majority, then all their sensible policies that will help sort the country out will pass anyway, and it'll be an important check on Labour as well as effectively making PR a requirement of a 2nd-term manifesto.

You could argue a slim Labour majority runs the risk of the Tories coming back in too. For the sake of good governance you’d probably need a majority of 30+

[Nobody Interesting]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Ok so now you're just downplaying by election results as meaningless.

Well given one of the last 2 seats ceases to exist at the next GE that one at least really was meaningless.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Well given one of the last 2 seats ceases to exist at the next GE that one at least really was meaningless.

Probably not for the constituents that voted in those seats that want representation. 

[kaosmark2]

8 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You could argue a slim Labour majority runs the risk of the Tories coming back in too. For the sake of good governance you’d probably need a majority of 30+

A slim Labour majority or a large Labour minority actually gives the best chance of shutting the Tories out long-term. Governing effectively without a large majority will show the public that they don't need to be scared of hung-parliaments being indecisive.

[Nobody Interesting]

21 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

A hung-Parliament runs the risk of the government collapsing and allowing the Tories back in any following election. The best thing for the country would be for Labour to win a majority, sort the issues facing the country and then at the end of the 2nd term enact PR. We can’t run the risk of the Tories getting back in considering how they’ve gutted the country. 

Labour when gaining majorities will never let PR happen - why would they?

Also, a Labour government getting elected and then not really  changing anything will also allow the Tories back in - and that is what we are heading for as without big policy changes and money not a lot is going to change.

I know the Tories are crap but being scared of anything and everything cos they 'will get back in' means we stay stagnant forever - and unless the system changes then the Tories will get back in again sooner than you think regardless and they will be even more right wing as Labour is stealing the centre right ground in a bid to be seen as a government in waiting.

[kaosmark2]

4 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Well given one of the last 2 seats ceases to exist at the next GE that one at least really was meaningless.

It's a little interesting for the seats it'll be absorbed into.

Rees-Mogg's seat of North Somerset is going to take in about 1/3 of Kingswood and lose about 1/3 of its posh rural bits, which means it's an indication there's a much larger possibility that that tosspot could lose his seat!

Bristol East is safe Labour anyway so I don't think the other 2/3 matters.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

A slim Labour majority or a large Labour minority actually gives the best chance of shutting the Tories out long-term. Governing effectively without a large majority will show the public that they don't need to be scared of hung-parliaments being indecisive.

Spot on and well said

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

A slim Labour majority or a large Labour minority actually gives the best chance of shutting the Tories out long-term. Governing effectively without a large majority will show the public that they don't need to be scared of hung-parliaments being indecisive.

I found the last hung-Parliament thoroughly entertaining but they can be less stable especially if the size of the majority is very small and the MPs on the fringes are likely to cause issues. I think we can all agree the country has massive issues that need sorting and a stable Labour government is the best way of dealing with that. It is a big risk of a the Tories coming back in with a hung-Parliament and one we shouldn’t need to deal with. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

How do you think people should apply pressure to Labour to actually stand for something though? I see Starmer as about as left/right as Cameron, albeit he won't have a chancellor that's anywhere near as right-wing as Gideon. But I see Starmer enabling, whether passively or actively, abuse against minorities that includes myself and my loved ones, while also having a general set of policies that to me reads as right-of Blair.

I. People will put pressure based on their views, but if these views are at odds with the electorate you risk losing votes and not gaining them. The leadership will have to make that judgement call what you can sell and what you can’t. My view is that in power Starmer will be less risk averse and I guess that is my judgement call when I’m at the ballot box.

[pink_triangle]

58 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

What I hope we might get is change - cos as I said, 75 years and counting of blue then red and repeat and look where we are. Something needs to change and a hung parliament is currently the best we can hope for to get anything to change, even a little.

The thing is when Lib Dem’s went in to coalition with the Torys it didn’t really change much apart from the AV referendum, I am not sure Lib Dem’s would change labours direction significantly. The trouble for both Lib Dem’s or the SNP in a hung parliament is if they bring down the government they let in the Tory’s which weakens negotiation position.

[Nobody Interesting]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The thing is when Lib Dem’s went in to coalition with the Torys it didn’t really change much apart from the AV referendum, I am not sure Lib Dem’s would change labours direction significantly. The trouble for both Lib Dem’s or the SNP in a hung parliament is if they bring down the government they let in the Tory’s which weakens negotiation position.

The Lib Dems were weak and sacred and so accepted the AV referendum rather than rejecting it and demanding PR.

The Tories played them out the park taking credit for the good things Lib Dems put in and putting the blame for the bad things on them........................... and that still holds true today. Clegg saw power and rather than playing hardball, he just took the first offer

[Neil]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Voters are expected to make all the compromise and vote for either one of the major parties that they hate least.

 

that's how people vote under any system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

So you end up with low turnout where a unified fringe can end up dominating the agenda. As happens now.

as happened with corbyn. same opportunities are open to all.

 

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Brexit would not have happened under PR.

so most important to you is to deny democracy, pr might have stopped the referendum happening, but the result of a ref would be the same.

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

The thing is when Lib Dem’s went in to coalition with the Torys it didn’t really change much apart from the AV referendum, I am not sure Lib Dem’s would change labours direction significantly. The trouble for both Lib Dem’s or the SNP in a hung parliament is if they bring down the government they let in the Tory’s which weakens negotiation position.

Lib dems had a lot more power then than they realised and they totally and utterly f**ked it. They'd have to be pretty daft to not use their bargaining power better next time. 

 

[Neil]

1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

l Labour are never gonna offer it

yeah, cos the likes of mattiloy can't wait to be a splitter, and ensure the tories can clean up.

 

1 hour ago, fraybentos1 said:

Labour were recently talking about proper Lords reform (another thing they have back tracked on) so I am sure that could be included in some sort of package.

needs to be part of a package otherwise we'll end up with PR for the lords and not PR for the commons (cos pr in the lords will be given as a reason for why the commons cant have it).

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, Neil said:

yeah, cos the likes of mattiloy can't wait to be a splitter, and ensure the tories can clean up.

 

needs to be part of a package otherwise we'll end up with PR for the lords and not PR for the commons (cos pr in the lords will be given as a reason for why the commons cant have it).

Just be more bloody voting...not another one etc.

Put the computers in charge.

[kaosmark2]

33 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I found the last hung-Parliament thoroughly entertaining but they can be less stable especially if the size of the majority is very small and the MPs on the fringes are likely to cause issues. I think we can all agree the country has massive issues that need sorting and a stable Labour government is the best way of dealing with that. It is a big risk of a the Tories coming back in with a hung-Parliament and one we shouldn’t need to deal with. 

Except a large part of the issue is that the Tory fringes are extremists. If we're to believe Starmer, he's kicked out the racist extremists, certainly from MPs.

Also, if Labour are short say, 10 votes or similar for a sensible policy, and the far-left end of Labour is opposing it, you'd generally expect the Lib Dems to back it, not just because it should align with their own beliefs, but also that'll help justify some form of PR longer-term for their interests that way.

[kaosmark2]

36 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I. People will put pressure based on their views, but if these views are at odds with the electorate you risk losing votes and not gaining them. The leadership will have to make that judgement call what you can sell and what you can’t. My view is that in power Starmer will be less risk averse and I guess that is my judgement call when I’m at the ballot box.

So my view is that Starmer has welcomed a violent racist back as a Labour MP. Simultaneously, he's made a whole swathe of promises, many of which were popular, and he's gone back on them not due to the electorate, but due to our right-wing media and lobbyists.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Except a large part of the issue is that the Tory fringes are extremists. If we're to believe Starmer, he's kicked out the racist extremists, certainly from MPs.

Also, if Labour are short say, 10 votes or similar for a sensible policy, and the far-left end of Labour is opposing it, you'd generally expect the Lib Dems to back it, not just because it should align with their own beliefs, but also that'll help justify some form of PR longer-term for their interests that way.

Thats what I mean though, it’s a risk of relying on Lib Dem votes and if that doesn’t work then it could collapse the government triggering an election and letting the Tories back in. It is a big risk especially when the country is in such a bad state as it is now.

The SCG are still in the party and probably would love to cause a Labour government some grief if they can. 

[Guest]

 

[pink_triangle]

29 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

Lib dems had a lot more power then than they realised and they totally and utterly f**ked it. They'd have to be pretty daft to not use their bargaining power better next time. 

 

They had power because they could play off both sides and agree failed to use it. If labour is the only option then I think their negotiating hand is weaker.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

They had power because they could play off both sides and agree failed to use it. If labour is the only option then I think their negotiating hand is weaker.

Have you ever watched the documentary on those 5 days after the 2010 election?

[kaosmark2]

12 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Thats what I mean though, it’s a risk of relying on Lib Dem votes and if that doesn’t work then it could collapse the government triggering an election and letting the Tories back in. It is a big risk especially when the country is in such a bad state as it is now.

The SCG are still in the party and probably would love to cause a Labour government some grief if they can. 

If Labour being a fraction short of a majority can't get a policy through, then Starmer's failed to convince both his own party and every else other than Tories, and therefore that policy is probably a little bit sh*t.

If Labour return over 300 MPs and can't govern then that's entirely on Starmer, not the problems of minority government.

[pink_triangle]

15 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

So my view is that Starmer has welcomed a violent racist back as a Labour MP. Simultaneously, he's made a whole swathe of promises, many of which were popular, and he's gone back on them not due to the electorate, but due to our right-wing media and lobbyists.

Which promises do you think he has dropped that are popular? Also for the popular policies do you believe the electorate are willing to pay for them?

I completely appreciate why you think labour have let you down, the reality is however the average voter has no clue about labour selections, party discipline etc.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

If Labour being a fraction short of a majority can't get a policy through, then Starmer's failed to convince both his own party and every else other than Tories, and therefore that policy is probably a little bit sh*t.

If Labour return over 300 MPs and can't govern then that's entirely on Starmer, not the problems of minority government.

It’s also on the MPs themselves and if they want to risk another Tory government. It’s essentially what Labour would do as a minority government, daring opposition parties to vote down a Kings Speech. 
 

Thats my point though, it’s all a risk and at this time I don’t think the country needs that. 

[Guest]