Labour vs Labour

[The Red Baron]

Filo

Which is exactly why the push should be full AV now.

Our politics is totally broken. It needs fixing from bottom up.

BST. Surely STV would be a better system? Adopting the system they use in Scotland would also make sense.

Despite what was said in that referendum we had, AV is not really proportional representation. It is just a means of reducing the need for tactical voting.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Sorry TRB...my mistake. I didn't mean AV. I meant full PR. Brain's not working today.

STV would be my way forward. Let us have permanent coalitions. Let the main parties break up into the sub-parties that they actually are. Let them campaign for what they truly believe in, without having to make the wide compromises that they currently do. And, most importantly, let everyone feel that their vote actually counts.

Our current system is an utter disgrace. It gives almost unfettered executive power to Govts voted for by fewer than 40% of those hwo vote and fewer than 30% of the electorate. And it effectively disenfranchises 80% of the electorate, who vote either in a constituency where there is only one possible outcome, our vote on principle for a party that they believe in, but that party has no chance of winning the seat. That system is the main reason why there is such a disconnect between the people and Parliament. There is nothing more important in the country than fixing that, quickly.

[Mike_F]

100% completely and unequivocally agree with that, Billy.

Even though it would lead to the likes of UKIP getting more seats at least it's a true reflection of democracy in action.

[wing commander]

Remind me. Is this supposed to be about the future of the Labour Party or retribution for the past?

    Now there's a comment based on recent debates on Orgreave and Hillsbrough....Retribution has to come depending on Chilcott results..The same as any other enquiry..The blairites know it's coming which is why they are lining up there horses now...For Labour it will get worse before it gets better I fear...Which even as a centre ground tory scares me,one party states are dangerous things...

[idler]

100% completely and unequivocally agree with that, Billy.

Even though it would lead to the likes of UKIP getting more seats at least it's a true reflection of democracy in action.

The greens getting a few seats or even the BNP would be worth it. Extreme parties would never be able to steamroller their policies through. Hopefully it would lead to reasoned debate and a measure of compromise.

[Copps is Magic]

The BNP are non existent. Gone, finished. Can't remember the figures but they got next to no votes at the last general election.

The big losers in the current system are the Lib Dems, UKIP and the Greens and the big winners are  the SNP.

[BillyStubbsTears]

...and whichever party is the larger of the two main ones.

e.g.

in 2015, The Conservatives won 36.9% of the vote and 50.8% of the seats.
in 2005, Labour won 35.2% of the vote and 55.2% of the seats.

It's always been argued that at least FFTP gives us strong Govt. Apart from the fact that "strong" can mean "unfettered power that doesn't reflect the public mood" (Iraq? Thatcherism?), we haven't even had strong Govt recently. It's been hobbled by internal party politics. Just like it was in the mid-70s under Labour.

It can't go on, and we will not have grown up, democratic and functional politics in this country until we change it.

[Donnywolf]

...and whichever party is the larger of the two main ones.

e.g.

in 2015, The Conservatives won 36.9% of the vote and 50.8% of the seats.
in 2005, Labour won 35.2% of the vote and 55.2% of the seats.

It's always been argued that at least FFTP gives us strong Govt. Apart from the fact that "strong" can mean "unfettered power that doesn't reflect the public mood" (Iraq? Thatcherism?), we haven't even had strong Govt recently. It's been hobbled by internal party politics. Just like it was in the mid-70s under Labour.

It can't go on, and we will not have grown up, democratic and functional politics in this country until we change it.

.... and was'nt the Major surprise win a majority of 21 seats and the votes to have generated a win for Labour about 1100 ?

Based on 21 seats - which had they lost 11 of them would mean they would have lost by a Seat

Then in the 11 closest majorities they won some by say 75 votes so had 38 voted against the in that Seat they would have lost and so on ... it added up to just over 1000 I think

Slightly different to PR I know but annoyed me then AND I DO carry a grudge !

[Sammy Chung was King]

The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.

No it wouldn't as there'd be no cohesive manifesto to bind them all together. If you think they'd just be able to run their own department in whatever way they want to to the best of their ability then you're rather naive. Settled? They'd be arguing like cats and dogs.

[RedJ]

Christ, imagine a Tory in No. 11 and Labour running the NHS...

[Glyn_Wigley]

Christ, imagine a Tory in No. 11 and Labour running the NHS...

And Nigel Farage as Foreign Secretary..!

[Sammy Chung was King]

The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.

No it wouldn't as there'd be no cohesive manifesto to bind them all together. If you think they'd just be able to run their own department in whatever way they want to to the best of their ability then you're rather naive. Settled? They'd be arguing like cats and dogs.

Why do you think intelligent people, can't find a way of working together. A manifesto could very easily be worked out between those elected to each position. The public would be given a list of candidates for each role, and then a government formed, using the different viewpoints to run the country better. Are you telling me labour and the conservatives policies are really so different?, i don't think so.
The Con/Lib coalition worked well enough to a point. Why not have the strongest person in each role?

[Glyn_Wigley]

The system, doesn't really support, governing for the people. The best from each party picked for a certain term for each job, would lead to a much more settled political situation, and the country would be stronger for it.

No it wouldn't as there'd be no cohesive manifesto to bind them all together. If you think they'd just be able to run their own department in whatever way they want to to the best of their ability then you're rather naive. Settled? They'd be arguing like cats and dogs.

Why do you think intelligent people, can't find a way of working together. A manifesto could very easily be worked out between those elected to each position. The public would be given a list of candidates for each role, and then a government formed, using the different viewpoints to run the country better. Are you telling me labour and the conservatives policies are really so different?, i don't think so.
The Con/Lib coalition worked well enough to a point. Why not have the strongest person in each role?

So, in your Utopia a manifesto is worked out after we've voted for the candidates and in effect we're giving the winners carte blanche to do whatever they like without the mandate to do it?

What happens if someone turns out to be crap at the job, do they have to stay there for the full five years because we've voted them there?

Who picks all the Junior Ministers, Select Committee members etc. etc.?

Oh, and who decides th list of candidates that you're talking about - do we get to vote for who makes that decision?

[Sammy Chung was King]

Then they are accountable, they lose the job they occupy. No as always it would be voted on, but in my way of thinking the amount of mp's would be made smaller. A compact government, would work better, rather than a top heavy government.
There would be a vote on who the public want to see in each job. The candidates would be put forward by currently serving mp's, and narrowed to three for each position.
Each person in each position as head of that department, would then appoint other mp's to his or her department. They would be given the funding for a streamlined department.

The candidates would campaign on why they are most suited to the role. The public should be able to decide, for example who is the better leader for the country, rather than being stuck with a leader, just because he or she is the current party leader.
What would be so wrong in having the best people in each role?. You see it everytime a government is elected, mp's being shoved into a role that doesn't suit them, and often the party not in power have better candidates for that job.
Under my way, a manifesto wouldn't be needed as a group any more. Each person put into a position would work hard for the country, rather than one party. It would cut away having to listen to lies, and would make them accountable if they fail !.

[RedJ]

That would be utter, utter chaos.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Then they are accountable

To who? The public once every five years or Parliament and the Select Committees as they currently are?

they lose the job they occupy

Who decides that if they're proven to be incompentent six months into a five year tenure?

No as always it would be voted on, but in my way of thinking the amount of mp's would be made smaller. A compact government, would work better, rather than a top heavy government.

Erm...you do know that Parliament and the Government are two separate entities, don't you, and reducing the number of MPs does nothing to the size of the Government? If not, it explains a lot.

There would be a vote on who the public want to see in each job. The candidates would be put forward by currently serving mp's, and narrowed to three for each position.

Narrowed to three by whom?

Each person in each position as head of that department, would then appoint other mp's to his or her department. They would be given the funding for a streamlined department.

Who decides the amount of funding each department gets and how it would fit into a cohesive economic strategy? What if the Head of Department rejects the level of funding as unworkable and resigns? You do know that 'streamlining' a Department is nothing to do with the number of politicians but the civil servants who do the actual work don't you - why do you think think the NHS, HMRC and DWP have fallen apart since they've been 'streamlined' since 2010?

The candidates would campaign on why they are most suited to the role. The public should be able to decide, for example who is the better leader for the country, rather than being stuck with a leader, just because he or she is the current party leader.

You mean a President? Then why didn't you just say so?

What would be so wrong in having the best people in each role?. You see it everytime a government is elected, mp's being shoved into a role that doesn't suit them, and often the party not in power have better candidates for that job.

Because they'd have such disparate views on what is best for the country they wouldn't agree a proper short, medium and long-term strategy. And if they don't get what they want, they'd resign because they wouldn't be able to accept Collective Responsibility.

Under my way, a manifesto wouldn't be needed as a group any more.

And you'd be wanting people to vote for someone without having any idea of what their ideas are for the future of the country? Would you expect the personal manifesto of the leader to be imposed on the rest of the government? Would you really expect an elected head of Department to implement policies that they completely disagree with? What happens if one elected Head of Department's personal manifesto clashes completely with another directly elected Head of Department's manifesto?

Each person put into a position would work hard for the country, rather than one party.

So what's Parliament's role in all this without a party structure to ensure a consistent policy platform is voted through? What happens when a directly elected Head of Department's proposed legislation is voted down by Parliament?

It would cut away having to listen to lies, and would make them accountable if they fail !.

Accountable to who? The public, just once every five years? And you really think they ain't going to lie about their achievements (or lack of them!) to stay in power??