Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on September 05, 2018, 06:52:35 pm
-
This is astonishing. Maps based on recent polls showing the result of a General Election if only certain age groups voted.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1037273833462542336
The political divide is no longer rich Vs poor or North Vs South.
It's Young Vs Old.
-
As was the Brexit vote.
-
As was the Brexit vote.
.... its those who were too young to Vote I feel sorriest for particularly the 16 to 18 group (have to draw the line somewhere). They will be saddled* with the outcome of our EU departure without ever having a chance to vote
* Saddled is assuming the outcome is negative to them and I accept the outcome may be favourable.
-
Yes amazing - and a challenge for all the political parties.
-
Because they vote in large numbers Oaps have never had it so good.
-
It's been said that if you're not a socialist by the time you're 20 there must be something wrong with you. If you're still a socialist at 50 there's definitely something wrong with you.
I wonder if those stats prove that might be the case?
-
The phrase was if you're not a socialist at 20 you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 50 you have no head.
That worked if you bought the idea that the Tories were economically competent, if heartless. Competent bas**rds as one Tory put it.
Trouble is, they are now looking like incompetent bas**rds.
And there's another thing. One reason why people tended to get more right wing the older they got was that they felt they had worked hard for mortgage/career/pension and they felt less inclined to see higher taxes eating away at that. Thing is though, the current older generation has pulled the rope ladder up behind them. The younger generation haven't the same career certainty. They haven't got mortgages. They haven't got pensions. So there's a big argument to say that the very left-leaning youth of today will not go to the right as they get older.
-
Maybe they are now Billy, but what about before the Brexit vote when the UK was the top leading economy of the G7? Didn't you think the Tories were incompetent bas**rds then also?
-
Yes. Because they had engineered, through Austerity, the worst recovery from a recession for over 200 years. That is the root cause of all of our current ills. That was a decision of quite mind-numbing stupidity. It massively delayed our recovery in 2010-13 and that has left us permanently poorer by amounts that make my knackers retreat up to somewhere near my kidneys every time I think of it.
Osborne, being the canny politician that he was, changed tack on Austerity in 2013-15, whilst insisting that he hadn't. It's all there in the records if you want to go and look for it. f**k knows I've posted links to the data often enough.
The result of this was that by 2015 (just in time for an election - good, eh?) the UK economy was finally gathering pace. By 2016 our growth was the highest in the Western world. As you'd expect, because the f**king stupidity of Austerity had depressed potential activity for 3-4 years, (losing us something between £200-300bn of wealth in the meantime) with investment delayed until better times were in sight.
When you finally produce, half a decade too late, the environment for those better times, the economy naturally springs back and tries to make up the lost ground.
Put it another way. If you stop punching yourself in the gonads, you eventually start to feel better. But if you're the one who started the self abuse, it doesn't make you some sort of genius when you realise you should stop it.
But anyway. By 2015/16, we were finally having the recovery we should have had in 2010/11. 5 years and a quarter of a trillion quid too late but there you go.
And then we voted to drop a big iron weight on our gonads...
-
Whilst the Tories are useless, I just don't get why people would want to vote for the even more incompetent facist racist pig that is Corbyn.
We really are up the creek without a paddle
-
.... AND that illustrates the need for PR very nicely https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/home (https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/home)
The groundswell of opinion is for a fairer Voting system that SHOULD lead to more inclusiveness and less extremism either way
True it does produce 5 or 6 Governments in a relatively short period in some Countries and in some cases but maybe worth it to keep us largely in the middle of the road most of the time. After all of current EU Countries only UK and France do not use it
I am no expert by any means but I have been following https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/path-to-pr/ (https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/path-to-pr/) which expains in great detail every aspect - including of course the big 2 Parties benefit hugely by running under the current First past the Post system so guess what.....
.... RIGHT, though the Majority of people probably now favour PR they dont get their wish because the Tories and Labour overrule the Democratic wishes of the people ! It wont happen in my day but I wish and hope it comes sooner rather than later
Heres one I prepared earlier on August 14
Quote from: wing commander on August 14, 2018, 01:09:15 PM (https://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=266731.msg797341#msg797341) I for one am getting pretty much fed up with the lot of them..Maybe if BOTH party's spent more time in concentrating on doing whats best for this country rather than constantly trying to score cheap pointless political digs at each other..Then maybe just maybe this country could move forward...
Im with you
I have banged on (too long) about PR but flwed as it may be it should avoid extremism either way - and off the top of my head stop the DUP getting 10 Seats with 295,000* (and of course the balance of Power) where the Green Party gets 1 Seat for 550,000 votes *
Just cant be fair. Give us PR and then things might get better
* I excuse myself for guessing at the number of Votes / Seats but I cant be bothered to look it up as it just winds me up ! « Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 02:20:12 PM by Donnywolf »
-
PR would probably be a fairer system. For instance, the 4 million votes UKIP gained in 2015 would have given them dozens of seats in the Commons as opposed to the ONE seat they ended up with!
-
PR is all very well, but would you want Momentum to decide who all the Labour MPs are or ERG to decide who all the Tory MPs are instead of the electorate? Would that be democratically reflecting what the people want?
-
PR would probably be a fairer system. For instance, the 4 million votes UKIP gained in 2015 would have given them dozens of seats in the Commons as opposed to the ONE seat they ended up with!
Agreed.
But if we had PR, it would be a very different country.
Specifically, Thatcher would never have crossed the portal of No10. There's no question of that.
And in 2010, it's very likely that we'd have had a Lab/LD coalition which would not have implemented Austerity. Since UKIP's rise in 2012-15 was mainly a lashing out at the continuing depressed state of the economy, the likelihood is that the issue you raise would never have occurred.
-
I guess it's always cyclical though isn't it? Labour should probably be back in power now or soon but actually they're doing pretty poorly not to be. When they do they'll make mistakes, fall back and lose it again. It's impossible not to.
-
What we need though are politicians wise enough and brave enough to employ policies introduced by their opposite numbers rather than decry and dismantle something that works.
Not long after I moved to Bradford it was a hung council with Eric Pickles having the casting vote. He voted along party lines on every single vote, he was rewarded by Thatcher of course.
-
Eric Pickles, a man who really earned his knighthood. I used to have meetings with Homes and Communities Agency when he was Minister, and apparently amongst the many genius ideas he had was removing every other bulb from offices to save money. Never too worried about the large scale issues , but liked the show of power
-
It does go in cycles but they to be pretty long ones.
The Tories were in power for 13 straight years up to 1964.
Then Labour were in power for 11 of the next 14.5 years.
Then the Tories were in power for 18 years from 79-97.
Then Labour for 13 years.
Judging by that record, you wouldn't expect it to be an obvious change if Govt any time soon.
-
AHH Eric Pickles.
First thing he did in Govt in 2010 was to massively reduce Govt funding to Labour controlled councils and to shield Tory councils from those magnitudes of cuts.
So Donny's budget was cut by 8.9% while Dorset's was increased.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2010/dec/13/eric-pickles-council-budget-cuts
An out and out class warrior, that man.
-
He's an out and out something and it also begins with a c...
-
Would pr voting not just benefit the smaller parties ie the lib dems the Green Party and ukip?
-
PR would lead to
a) a much fairer representation of people's views in Parliament. If 10% of the electorate vote UKIP, UKIP should have 10% of the MPs. Any other distribution is immoral.
b) Much more sensible structures of political parties. To win in our current system you cannot split the vote on your side. That was what happened when the SDP left Labour in the early 80s. At the 83 Election , SDP/Liberals and Labour together won over 50% of the vote while the Tories won 43%. But Thatcher won a 144 seat majority and was totally free to push her policies through despite a large majority of the country having voted against them.
So in order to have a chance of winning, the Tories and Labour have to be big, all-encompasding parties appealling to a wide range of voters. So you get the ridiculous situation where Ken Clarke and Jacob Rees-Mogg are in the same party and so are Chukka Umunna and Dennis Skinner. Even though on many issues, Umunna and Clarke are in more agreement with each other than they are with the ones at the other side of their parties.
Under PR, the two main parties would split. We'd have:
A UKIP-like far right party
A moderate one-nation Tory party
A Liberal party
A Blair-like centre-left party
A Corbyn-like far left party.
The parties would then be able to campaign for what they REALLY believe. Corbyn could openly be anti EU and anti-NATO because he wouldn't have to pretend not to be to keep the centre-left happy.
And then there would have to be compromised and deals after an election when every party had won about 20% of the vote.
It's worked perfectly well in Germany for decades. There is no logical argument for us not having that system.
-
Thank you for your reply bst
-
In the interest of fairness thou would you agree the boundaries need changing as they favour the Labour Party at the minute?
-
True PR would have no constituencies as seats would be apportioned to the national vote
-
That would solve the problem then, would there aleays be a hung parliament or not?
-
Almost certainly.
-
True PR would have no constituencies as seats would be apportioned to the national vote
And the electorate would not be able to get rid of a politician they didn't like as the parties would decide. Not being able to vote someone out goes against democracy, as Tony Benn repeatedly said.
-
PR would lead to
a) a much fairer representation of people's views in Parliament. If 10% of the electorate vote UKIP, UKIP should have 10% of the MPs. Any other distribution is immoral.
b) Much more sensible structures of political parties. To win in our current system you cannot split the vote on your side. That was what happened when the SDP left Labour in the early 80s. At the 83 Election , SDP/Liberals and Labour together won over 50% of the vote while the Tories won 43%. But Thatcher won a 144 seat majority and was totally free to push her policies through despite a large majority of the country having voted against them.
So in order to have a chance of winning, the Tories and Labour have to be big, all-encompasding parties appealling to a wide range of voters. So you get the ridiculous situation where Ken Clarke and Jacob Rees-Mogg are in the same party and so are Chukka Umunna and Dennis Skinner. Even though on many issues, Umunna and Clarke are in more agreement with each other than they are with the ones at the other side of their parties.
Under PR, the two main parties would split. We'd have:
A UKIP-like far right party
A moderate one-nation Tory party
A Liberal party
A Blair-like centre-left party
A Corbyn-like far left party.
The parties would then be able to campaign for what they REALLY believe. Corbyn could openly be anti EU and anti-NATO because he wouldn't have to pretend not to be to keep the centre-left happy.
And then there would have to be compromised and deals after an election when every party had won about 20% of the vote.
It's worked perfectly well in Germany for decades. There is no logical argument for us not having that system.
What about the National Front. They are Nazi’s and look what happened in Germany in the 1930’s
PR would give them more power and that would be a disaster.
-
Nice in theory Glyn.
In practice, very few MPs lose their seats because of personal issues. Most do so because of their party's popularity. An MP's chances of being voted out depend mainly on whether they are unlucky enough to be in a marginal.
May and Gove and Abbott and Harman all have majorities above 20k. They could shoot a constituent and still not be voted out. (EDIT: Just realised I was looking at majorities from the 2015 election but the principle still holds.)
I get your point in principle but it is a pin prick compared to the huge injustice of our FPTP system.
-
Campsall.
Easy enough to deal with. You have a cut off of 5-10% of the vote. If a party doesn't reach that, they get zero MPs. That's what they do in Germany I believe. It was brought in specifically to stop tiny fringe nutcase parties getting exposure through having one or two gobshites elected.
-
I am chuffed that the benefits of PR in some form has a lot of people backing it rather than FPTP which is archaic and divisive
Lets hope they can continue to promote the issue until it is clearly understood - and adopted - though of course the 2 major parties will attempt to hinder the inevitable and so it may be too late for me to see it "in action" but it will benefit others for Centuries to come
Its not perfect of course but its a darn sight more perfect then FPTP and SHOULD make people (the electorate) feel more connected as their Vote WOULD count for something rather than some feel their personal Vote does now.
-
Nice in theory Glyn.
In practice, very few MPs lose their seats because of personal issues. Most do so because of their party's popularity. An MP's chances of being voted out depend mainly on whether they are unlucky enough to be in a marginal.
May and Gove and Abbott and Harman all have majorities above 20k. They could shoot a constituent and still not be voted out. (EDIT: Just realised I was looking at majorities from the 2015 election but the principle still holds.)
I get your point in principle but it is a pin prick compared to the huge injustice of our FPTP system.
You can have a PR system that retains the link between MP and constituency. I'm completely against party lists though. Would you like Momentum to decide who gets to be Labour MPs? They've probably got enough power in the party to do it now if they had the chance.
-
Glyn
It's a non-question because if we had PR, the present Labour party would split. Momentum would then effectively be a party itself.
-
Glyn
It's a non-question because if we had PR, the present Labour party would split. Momentum would then effectively be a party itself.
No they wouldn't. Not while the money from the unions only went to one party.
-
Glyn
The Labour party would split today if the centre-left didn't think it would be committing electoral suicide. They are actively discussing it as we speak. Tony Blair and David Blunkett were interviewed on that very topic on R4 this morning.
There would be plenty of funding for a centre-left Labour party.
-
There would be loads of funding indeed, just very little supporters. These career politicians don't seem to be enjoying open democracy do they?
-
Wes
I suspect there'd be something like 15-25% support for each of the five parties that would exist in a PR scenario. Because I suspect that there's a very wide spectrum of beliefs and opinions outside CLP meeting rooms and Twitter bubbles.
Why do you think that a centre-left party would have few supporters?
-
You can't really consider the separation of the main parties into smaller entities without consideration of the electoral system that they seek to address.
The central issue is what the electoral system should look like in a modern democracy. The TUC has been looking at this issue:
https://politicsforthemany.co.uk/stuc-trade-unionists-to-demand-reform-of-westminsters-rigged-voting-system/
Hiving off into a new party did not really work out in the days of the Social Democrats, Owen, Williams, Rodgers and them.
Horse before the cart eh, not the other way round!
-
Albie
Yes. That's precisely what I'm saying.
-
It's peculiar that a Labour party who achieved it's 3rd biggest vote share since 1970, and 12.87m popular votes is considered by some not to appeal to the centre-left, or be a centre-left party.
-
It's peculiar that you are making that non sequitur contribution to this thread.
-
But since you've posted it, I'll give my two pennorth.
That line about Labour's performance in 2017 is the sort of intellectually vacuous meme that is intended to shut down arguments. I get that. f**k knows I've heard enough Momentum friends bore me with it.
The obvious reply is to point out that in 2017, the Tories won their 4th highest vote since before The Beatles formed. And they are still polling at around d the same level. So, presumably that means that May is doing at least as good a job as Corbyn?
Or we could grow up and address the situation seriously instead of chucking stupid, out of context figures around. We could address the bleeding obvious point that 2017 was the first election since the 1970s that didn't include a serious 3rd party in England, so of course Labour and the Tories were going to see major increases in their votes. And in a two horse race, the side that wins the centre voters tends to win. So having activists going out of their way to hound out of office MPs who haven't signed up to the Church of the Latter Day Jeremy isn't the most electorally sensible approach.
But I'm sure it'll be someone else's fault when Labour don't win the next Election against the most shambolic Govt in a century.
-
Momentum friends? Ha!
I think that's inadvertently proved the point. Its quite a simple point really, and that's the labour party appealed to a lot more 'centre' voters than is commonly held to be the case (apparently in people's imaginations!). Momentum seems to have an incredible resonance for you (?) but for me, as a broadly quite hard left person, its pretty irrelevant.
As for the rest of the post, you don't have to get worked up. I flick in an out of reading this board. It's full of references to loony left, far left, never ending money tree, Diane Abbot couldn't organise a quiz night, marxist demagogues type fodder. Then I read your quirky little quotes about twitter rabbles, Church of Corbyn etc. and wonder if I've gone into a parallel universe.
-
As was the Brexit vote.
.... its those who were too young to Vote I feel sorriest for particularly the 16 to 18 group (have to draw the line somewhere). They will be saddled* with the outcome of our EU departure without ever having a chance to vote
* Saddled is assuming the outcome is negative to them and I accept the outcome may be favourable.
My daughter was one such person :(
-
Copps.
You entirely missed the point of the discussion then.
Unfortunately, that seems to be a common thing these days. Folk idly half-reading then deciding that someone thinks what they would like them to think.
All that education going to waste, eh?
-
BST,
I thought you had understood my point, but then you go on in a later post to say
"So having activists going out of their way to hound out of office MPs who haven't signed up to the
Church of the Latter Day Jeremy isn't the most electorally sensible approach. "
Oh Dear me!
The idea that MPs are being "hounded out" is completely ludicrous.
Labour MPs are surely responsible to the Constituency Labour Party that they represent.
By and large, people vote for the party, not the particular individual.
That is why those who lose the party whip should resign and fight a by-election, rather than continue to take the £70k and continue as an "Independent", like Field and Woodcock.
Now in any job you would expect to have a performance review, where those who trusted you to represent them reach a conclusion on your competence.
At present, Labour MPs are only subject to challenge by other parties in an election. There is no reselection mechanism to test if the local party believes they are fit and proper to continue.
This has to change as a key principle of internal party democracy.
Sniffing the breeze, some from the Blairite right sense imminent deselection by their CLP, so are trying to get their boot in first with the sniping campaign to undermine the party.The mood music is that they are being forced out into an SDP like "centrist" party (not unlike the Lib Dems).
The truth is that this is just an ego fest. They cannot accept that they may not be the best person to represent the revived Labour party in their constituency, and they want to maintain a personal profile and priveleges.
The price of this is the continuance of the Tories as the largest party, and the preservation of the electoral system which favours them.
I don't agree with your view of the electoral maths, and the assumption of a 2 horse race going forwards.
Labour will find it very difficult to secure a majority without recapturing lost Scottish support.
In this regard, the best prospect for electoral change is via a progressive coalition with other interested parties, SNP, Plaid, Greens etc.
This will involve agreeing to support the best anti-Tory candidate.
For Labour this means letting go of Unionism, and barmy legacy projects like Trident, to concentrate on social policy and environmental areas of agreement.
Without such an approach, both current Labour and any future hybrid Labour will occupy the deaf zone outside the power circle.
Some would like to see that, but not me!
-
Albie
The reselection issue is the key.
Do you think that either the intention of those pushing it, or the likely outcome will be a PLP that broadly reflects the opinions of Labour VOTERS or Labour MEMBERS?
That is a crucially important question as far as Labour's future electability is concerned. And I'll repeat. What ought to be the absolute number one issue of concern to any Labour supporter is figuring out why, when up against the worst PM and most shambolic Govt for a century, Labour is trailing in the polls.
Regarding the SNP, if you genuinely think that they are going to enter into an agreement with Labour to put up the best anti-Tory candidate then you're away with the fairies. That's the sort of idealistic nonsense that I'm regularly hearing from Labour's new left and it totally misunderstands the concept of the SNP.
The SNP doesn't exist as a conventional political party. It exists for one reason. To secure Scottish Independence. That is the first listed aim in its constitution.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.snp.org/senior_researcher_scotland_the_constitution_for_the_snp_westminster_group&ved=2ahUKEwi_wPKLlLDdAhVMJ8AKHVg7D2YQFjADegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2bDObHS6lJVSHuzrJU9eO1
An anti-Tory alliance does not get the SNP closer to that aim. A Labour Govt in Westminster doesn't get them closer to that aim. The SNP WANTS a Tory Govt so that they can play the line, "See? You Scots are left wing but whilrver you're in the Union, you'll be ruled by Tories."
The very last thing the SNP wants is an electorally credible Labour party in England. That is why Sturgeon and Cameron had a double act going on together before the 2015 election. They very skilfully presented Milliband to English voters as someone who would be in hock to the SNP if Labour had a minority Govt after the election. It was a big part of why Labour lost and that was an excellent outcome for the SNP.
-
Bst, what do you think then?
Your post on the first page directly stated a split in the Labour party would mean Corbyn wouldn't have to pander to the centre-left anymore.
I've told you I think the current labour party is currently a centre left party that has a broad popular appeal. Why would it not? They have broadly conventional Keynesian economic policies with a redistributive bent, and a whole host of populist policies on social issues.
Labour has popular support. And the Tory party is an unnerving machine. And the story of the last GE was a return to two party politics with a small increase in political engagement to support it.
Before the last election the story for you was an outfit fundamentally unable to appeal to a 'broad church' due to your experience of history.
Why then we're still in insurrection mode I don't know, but that's what it comes across as.
-
BST,
To your first question, Labour members, and rightly so.
Labour voters respond to the manifesto. That is the prospectus on which they are invited to support the candidate.
Second question, Labour are not trailling in the polls at present.
The polls are of much less relevance than in earlier years, and the past offers no guide as to future voting patterns.
I think you need to reconsider the value of polls in the light of Cambridge Analytica and the new horizon of influence.
Third, the SNP.
I was not saying the SNP would co-operate with Labour directly, there is no electoral advantage to them to do so.
I was saying Labour needs to co-operate with minority parties in England and Wales.
Despite the constitution, the SNP has been in power in Holyrood for some time and is the establishment incumbent.
They stand to gain from changes to the electoral system in the UK if that would make an independent Scotland more likely.
To that purpose it would support constitutional change at Westminster.
A hung parliament (the most likely outcome at the moment) does offer more room for negotiation, if their votes are needed to support a coalition from a minority position (like the DUP at present).
The SNP have gone as far as they can under the current system. They have every reason to support electoral change. I think they would jump at the chance if it offered an escape from the dead end they currently face.
Enough, back to work.
Lets agree to differ on this.
-
By and large, people vote for the party, not the particular individual.
Then by and large people don't understand the British Constitution.
-
By and large, people vote for the party, not the particular individual.
Then by and large people don't understand the British Constitution.
This. Irritates the shit out of me when people speak as though we have some type of presidential system. "I'm not voting for Corbyn/May!/I've voted for Nigel Farage!". No. Just no.
Though being pedantic, you could argue there's no such specific thing as the British constitution as it's unwritten...
-
Copps
1)Split in the Labour party. As I'm sure you realise, I was talking about a hypothetical scenario in which we had PR. If we did, it's inevitable that both the Labour and Tory parties would split and we'd have a more sensible re-alignment rather than the uncomfortable broad church parties that we have historically had.
2) 2017 Election. Yes Labour's performance surprised me. But there's a hard fact. Faced with a the most bizarrely incompetent performance ever by a sitting PM, Labour still lost by 60-odd seats. And Labour has not moved on since then. And in poll after poll, it's clear that Labour are doing great as well as they are despite Corbyn rather than because of him.
3)Political positioning. You say Labour are positioned at centre left economically and I entirely agree. I was saying that two and three years ago when you were telling me how refreshing it was to have a more radical economic policy even though the policies put forward in 2017 were more or less identical to those of Balls and Milliband. (It does make the Red Tory jibes that are thrown in the direction of anyone who ran the party pre-Jeremy a bit strange, but there you go.)
The problem is that Labour's foreign policy is (and I use the word carefully here) Marxist-inspired. And it is that which will lose Labour the next election. Labour have had two dips of 3-4% in the polls this year. One came as a result of Corbyn's ridiculous response to Salisbury and the other as a result of the self-inflicted anti-Semitism shambles.
It's not just me that's pissed off with this. McDonnell has been clearly furious with the way these things have been handled because he knows that Labour should win on the economic argument but lose if Corbyn draws the attention to student politics debates about the IHRA.
But there's the problem. Criticise Corbyn over these points and you immediately face a CLP vote of no confidence. With Iranian TV invited in to film the discussions.
4) Labour support. As a Labour supporter, does it not trouble you that, faced with the worst PM and most dysfunctional Govt in a century, the biggest crisis since the Luftwaffe were overhead and a badly backfiring economy, Labour are currently punching at about 38-39% in the polls? Because, as a Labour member, it greatly depressed me. Do you really think that supports your argument that Labour are appealing to a broad church?
-
By and large, people vote for the party, not the particular individual.
Then by and large people don't understand the British Constitution.
This. Irritates the shit out of me when people speak as though we have some type of presidential system. "I'm not voting for Corbyn/May!/I've voted for Nigel Farage!". No. Just no.
Though being pedantic, you could argue there's no such specific thing as the British constitution as it's unwritten...
Red
Glyn is right though. You vote for a named individual in a GE.
For the record, I do think there's a moral imperative on MPs who resign the whip to stand down and seek re election. In the case of Field (who I dislike and with whom I disagree on pretty much every policy issue) I'm not convinced that it would be good news for the leadership if he did force a by-election.
-
By and large, people vote for the party, not the particular individual.
Then by and large people don't understand the British Constitution.
This. Irritates the shit out of me when people speak as though we have some type of presidential system. "I'm not voting for Corbyn/May!/I've voted for Nigel Farage!". No. Just no.
Though being pedantic, you could argue there's no such specific thing as the British constitution as it's unwritten...
Red
Glyn is right though. You vote for a named individual in a GE.
For the record, I do think there's a moral imperative on MPs who resign the whip to stand down and seek re election. In the case of Field (who I dislike and with whom I disagree on pretty much every policy issue) I'm not convinced that it would be good news for the leadership if he did force a by-election.
I'm not disagreeing with Glyn. People are, in the majority of cases, voting for who they want to be PM. But they're not really, are they? The majority of people won't even know who they've voted for and some are genuinely confused not to see a party leader on the ballot.
-
Yep. I agree with all that.
I saw a poll recently that asked people to give a score to say where they and some leading politicians are on the scale 0=far left, 10=far right.
35% answered "don't know"
-
By and large, people vote for the party, not the particular individual.
Then by and large people don't understand the British Constitution.
This. Irritates the shit out of me when people speak as though we have some type of presidential system. "I'm not voting for Corbyn/May!/I've voted for Nigel Farage!". No. Just no.
Though being pedantic, you could argue there's no such specific thing as the British constitution as it's unwritten...
No you can't, and it's not about being pedantic either. An Unwritten Constitution doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or even not written down. It means it's not in one document but based on multiple documents, statutes and judicial precedents; none of which on their own embody a constitution.
-
I know that. But it doesn't exist in the sense that there is no singular constitution as it is as you say made up of all manner of things.
-
These 'centre ground' voters who din't vote for Labour in 2017 - who did they vote for then? The Liberals and Greens both saw a drop in their share of votes so it can't be them?
That only leaves the Tories - which would then mean a policy of Brexit, more austerity cuts, blocks on immigration and tax cuts is now the 'centre ground' of British politics.
There was a poll out recently which said something similar. It asked people where they thought each party stood on particular policies and found that whilst the centre was pretty much covered there was room for a new right wing party. Which is pretty much born out by what's happening across Europe.
Corbyn and Momentum have created something different in this country. A strong, mass movement party with pretty much social democratic policies. The biggest danger to it are the old Blairites who refuse to accept this whilst bleating for a return to the centre - whilst refusing to look around and seeing they aren't in the centre anymore.
This is the poll i referred to, which I for one find quite worrying
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/where-most-fertile-ground-new-party/
-
Wilts.
As ever, it's frequently about impressions.
I agree that Labour's domestic policies are centre-left and you could have dropped the "left" part of that if they'd been proposed before 1979. I've been saying that for the past 3 years, and for many years before that when Labour's economic policies were very similar (although you won't find many Corbynistas who would agree with that - there's seems to be a need to make 2015 our Year Zero and decry everything that went before).
As I keep saying, the problem is very much with the foreign policy. That comes from a basically Marxist interpretation of Oppressors and Oppressed. This is core to Corbyn's world view and that of many of the people around him. And it leads to the stupid response to Salisbury and the stupid navel gazing over the IHRA anti-semitism definition. And when Labour run down those alleys, they look to the electorate like an extreme Left party, regardless of whether they are or not.
Labour lost 2-3% in the polls due to Salisbury. They've lost another 2-3% due to the anti-semitism shambles. That's why we are now polling around 38% when we were up at around 43%.
38% support against such a shocking Govt and PM does not make a compelling case that Labour is getting the support it needs. We should have been moving on and up over the past 6 months and instead we've allowed ourselves to be put on the defensive,through self-inflicted wounds. What happens next is very important.
Labour COULD concentrate on the domestic economic case and on providing a sensible response to Brexit. To be fair, McDonnell was more of less screaming for that approach in his New Statesman interview last week. Or Labour could go into a year of both indulging Corbyn's foreign policy ideological purity and simultaneously effectively purging MPs to the right of Corbyn. And in so doing, it will allow itself to be painted as an extreme left party.
Stories like the Enfield vote last week, with what appears to be new party members who work for a banned Iranian news company attending, voting and streaming the proceedings back to Tehran are meat and drink to those who will want to paint Labour as too extreme to be trusted.
Big decisions to make about the direction from here.
-
I know that. But it doesn't exist in the sense that there is no singular constitution as it is as you say made up of all manner of things.
It does exist. It's just not in one single document. It doesn't have to be a Written Constitution to still be a Constitution.
-
These 'centre ground' voters who din't vote for Labour in 2017 - who did they vote for then? The Liberals and Greens both saw a drop in their share of votes so it can't be them?
That only leaves the Tories - which would then mean a policy of Brexit, more austerity cuts, blocks on immigration and tax cuts is now the 'centre ground' of British politics.
There was a poll out recently which said something similar. It asked people where they thought each party stood on particular policies and found that whilst the centre was pretty much covered there was room for a new right wing party. Which is pretty much born out by what's happening across Europe.
Corbyn and Momentum have created something different in this country. A strong, mass movement party with pretty much social democratic policies. The biggest danger to it are the old Blairites who refuse to accept this whilst bleating for a return to the centre - whilst refusing to look around and seeing they aren't in the centre anymore.
This is the poll i referred to, which I for one find quite worrying
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/08/01/where-most-fertile-ground-new-party/
If you have PR, which I favour, an inevitable consequence would be at least one Right-wing party with seats in Parliament.
It would probably be formed from the rump of UKIP along with some of the more right wing elements of the current Tory Party.
Certainly in England you would probably end up with about six parties winning seats.
-
There'd be a lot more Tories I think as the Scottish unionist vote tends to go to them these days.
-
There'd be a lot more Tories I think as the Scottish unionist vote tends to go to them these days.
It does at the moment but that can and is likely to change overnight - it depends how solid that Tory vote is in Scotland . Past history would suggest that it is can't be relied upon.
-
I wouldn't have classed UKIP as far right.
-
I wouldn't have classed UKIP as far right.
If you don't class UKIP as far right, maybe you don't know as much as you think about Politics :facepalm:
-
I wouldn't have classed UKIP as far right.
If you don't class UKIP as far right, maybe you don't know as much as you think about Politics :facepalm:
Depends where you stand in the first place. I get the distinct impression that UKIP are pinko liberals compared to Axholme.
-
Well that's the usual reply anyone who doesn't vote labour or remain gets....
Next.
-
Is it though?
-
Well that's the usual reply anyone who doesn't vote labour or remain gets....
Next.
I was comparing them to you, not anyone. Compared to just about anyone else, UKIP are rabid right-wingers.
-
I would say that UKIP stand for the silent majority of normal, hard working people.
-
Of course you would.
-
I don't think I need to add anything to that.
-
Of course people like me aren't allowed an opinion, because we are too stupid to be allowed to vote because we didn't go to university and are not 'right on' lefties.
-
Of course people like me aren't allowed an opinion, because we are too stupid to be allowed to vote because we didn't go to university and are not 'right on' lefties.
I didn't go to university either. Funny how perceived slight at intelligence always comes up when people get defensive though...
-
Of course you're allowed an opinion. Just like everyone is. And everyone's allowed to argue against them too.
-
The irony is the vast majority of current university students weren't allowed an opinion because they were too young to vote in the Brexit vote two years ago.
-
I would say that UKIP stand for the silent majority of normal, hard working people.
I'm not sure about a silent 'majority' but I reckon there's a hell of a lot more silent UKIP supporters than their opponents like to think there are. They are silent because of the accusations of racism they get, just like those who voted leave get.
-
All credit to you BB for defending the truly politically disposed, the voiceless. They must dream of the day Nigel Farage can appear on daytime TV or Tommy Robinson can mobilise some EDL people without reprisal. One small catch though it's UKIP accusing UKIP of being racist (http://www.itv.com/news/2018-09-26/ukip-mep-resigns-accusing-leader-of-hijacking-party/). But apart from that.
-
Ah, right. So UKIP is the only party where one member calls another racist! Mmm!
-
I would say that UKIP stand for the silent majority of normal, hard working people.
I'm not sure about a silent 'majority' but I reckon there's a hell of a lot more silent UKIP supporters than their opponents like to think there are. They are silent because of the accusations of racism they get, just like those who voted leave get.
Oh bless! Poor little lambs.
-
Can't pull the wool over your eyes, eh Billy boy!
-
I wouldn't have classed UKIP as far right.
I missed this little gem from Axholme - I do hope you said that in jest ? UKIP and followers of UKIP are definitely considered at least right of centre - right.
-
Of course people like me aren't allowed an opinion, because we are too stupid to be allowed to vote because we didn't go to university and are not 'right on' lefties.
If you're not allowed an opinion, how come you keep telling us what it is?
-
I would say that UKIP stand for the silent majority of normal, hard working people.
If that's true, how come they don't vote for UKIP? That big a majority would sweep them to power, surely?
-
I would say that UKIP stand for the silent majority of normal, hard working people.
If that's true, how come they don't vote for UKIP? That big a majority would sweep them to power, surely?
Because of the fear of splitting the vote for the centre right and letting in Labour by default, similar to the SDP/Labour vote split in the past.
-
As was the Brexit vote.
.... its those who were too young to Vote I feel sorriest for particularly the 16 to 18 group (have to draw the line somewhere). They will be saddled* with the outcome of our EU departure without ever having a chance to vote
* Saddled is assuming the outcome is negative to them and I accept the outcome may be favourable.
My daughter was born August 1998 in Denmark for a year at uni - didn't get to vote by 2 months. Both her and a good few of her friends at Leeds uni in a similar position. None of them are happy John, nor are those slightly older who didn't get off their backsides because as they thought ' Remain ' was a certain winner- however they all voted last year hoping for a change in direction ! Now they are saddled with this as the Tories refuse to put the good of the country before their Party.