IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 20, 2021 13:13:05 GMT
"...Remember that your vote counts for THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL........." Perhaps, but most MPs are whipped to death and scared shiteless of going against their Masters, so you really are voting for The Party when it comes to The Big Issues. It's the vicious circle. People vote for the colour of the ribbon. Constituency parties have central-party-yes-men foisted on them. If people voted for the actual individual, we might get some politicians with some character and integrity... with a decent electoral system you could do both - vote for best local MP (using a preferential voting system), and vote for top up proportion by party.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 20, 2021 13:15:38 GMT
"But this Tory government really, really, really has to go."Rock? Hard Place? Who on earth is anywhere near capable of replacing them? No argument, I agree with the sentiment, but we literally have no other viable choices, IMHO. It's "The curse of The West" in many/most Democracies, mostly a choice of only two parties, both below mediocre. I think most western democracies (US obviously excluded) give you a better choice than our first past the post system.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 20, 2021 13:19:52 GMT
The two big parties don't really want their predominance diluted by any PR. They like everybody else being irrelevant also-rans. But... without somebody other than the two big parties having power, there's never going to be any way for anybody else to get power.
2010 gave us a coalition. The major party outnumbered the minor one 6:1. The minor party punched way above that weight... yet the electorate went on to blame the minor party for everything, merely entrenching the two big parties. It's been decades since a third national party have had so few MPs.
And, of course, then we hit the minor detail of 2011... One of the Tory sops to the LD coalition partners was a referendum on removing FPTP. But... the proposition actually put to the public was so wishy-washy that it got voted down 2:1 on a wave of indifference - just 42% of the electorate bothered to vote. Bingo, permission to ignore it for the foreseeable future.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 20, 2021 13:22:59 GMT
I have to say I am more and more persuaded that a formal "progressive"* red-yellow-green electoral alliance, for one term only, with electoral reform on the manifesto, is increasingly the only way out. Sadly the UK may break up before then - although conversely that may make it even more the only way out.
*I say this knowing that plenty of the red part are far from progressive
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 20, 2021 13:24:26 GMT
The two big parties don't really want their predominance diluted by any PR. They like everybody else being irrelevant also-rans. But... without somebody other than the two big parties having power, there's never going to be any way for anybody else to get power. 2010 gave us a coalition. The major party outnumbered the minor one 6:1. The minor party punched way above that weight... yet the electorate went on to blame the minor party for everything, merely entrenching the two big parties. It's been decades since a third national party have had so few MPs. And, of course, then we hit the minor detail of 2011... One of the Tory sops to the LD coalition partners was a referendum on removing FPTP. But... the proposition actually put to the public was so wishy-washy that it got voted down 2:1 on a wave of indifference - just 42% of the electorate bothered to vote. Bingo, permission to ignore it for the foreseeable future. Stick proper electoral reform in your manifesto and you don't need a referendum.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 20, 2021 13:25:20 GMT
What I've never understood is the buisness of appeal and then appeal.
When growing up I used to think the idea was that if a lower court did not follow correct procedure it could be challenged. e.g. the jury was selected incorrectly, the defendant couldn't hear the proceedings or didn't understand the language etc.
But now I'm wondering given the frequency of appeals, is the idea that the chap with the most money can keep appealing to increase his chances of victory?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 20, 2021 13:25:28 GMT
The two big parties don't really want their predominance diluted by any PR. They like everybody else being irrelevant also-rans. But... without somebody other than the two big parties having power, there's never going to be any way for anybody else to get power. 2010 gave us a coalition. The major party outnumbered the minor one 6:1. The minor party punched way above that weight... yet the electorate went on to blame the minor party for everything, merely entrenching the two big parties. It's been decades since a third national party have had so few MPs. And, of course, then we hit the minor detail of 2011... One of the Tory sops to the LD coalition partners was a referendum on removing FPTP. But... the proposition actually put to the public was so wishy-washy that it got voted down 2:1 on a wave of indifference - just 42% of the electorate bothered to vote. Bingo, permission to ignore it for the foreseeable future. Stick proper electoral reform in your manifesto and you don't need a referendum. Apart from referring you back to the first sentence of the post you quoted... when did political parties ever stick to a manifesto promise?
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
|
Post by IFISAcava on Oct 20, 2021 13:28:22 GMT
Stick proper electoral reform in your manifesto and you don't need a referendum. Apart from referring you back to the first sentence of the post you quoted... when did political parties ever stick to a manifesto promise? "oven-ready deal"? Sure - hence why Labour probably needs to lose big again before it might just agree to an electoral alliance with reform on the agenda. But more likely the self-interest of the 2 main parties persists as you say.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 4,191
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 20, 2021 13:30:23 GMT
"...Remember that your vote counts for THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL........." Perhaps, but most MPs are whipped to death and scared shiteless of going against their Masters, so you really are voting for The Party when it comes to The Big Issues. I think there are plenty of rebels on the back benches (and probably a few sat further towards the front), but with a government majority of 80 there isn't a lot of mileage in putting your head above the parapet.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 20, 2021 13:32:39 GMT
"...Remember that your vote counts for THE NAMED INDIVIDUAL........." Perhaps, but most MPs are whipped to death and scared shiteless of going against their Masters, so you really are voting for The Party when it comes to The Big Issues. I think there are plenty of rebels on the back benches (and probably a few sat further towards the front), but with a government majority of 80 there isn't a lot of mileage in putting your head above the parapet. There were potential rebels on the Tory benches before September 2019. Not so many since. IFISAcava - that oven-readiness seems to be being rapidly rowed-back-upon right now...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,618
Likes: 4,191
|
Post by agent69 on Oct 20, 2021 13:45:37 GMT
I've often thought that the labour hierarchy were more worried about being popular with the rank and file than being popular with the wider electorate. As a consequence re-adopting the only policies that have made them electable over the last 40 years would probably sound the death knell for any leader. Their current business model appears to rely solely on the Conservatives making themselves so unpopular that everyone will have to vote Labour.
Her majesty's official opposition party? You're having a giraffe!
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Oct 20, 2021 14:11:43 GMT
And, of course, then we hit the minor detail of 2011... One of the Tory sops to the LD coalition partners was a referendum on removing FPTP. But... the proposition actually put to the public was so wishy-washy that it got voted down 2:1 on a wave of indifference - just 42% of the electorate bothered to vote. Bingo, permission to ignore it for the foreseeable future. As with many things you could argue that the 58% who didn't vote were happy with the status quo. (much as you could argue those who didn't vote for Brexit were happy to stay in) I know one person who never votes, he says it's pointless as Labour always wins in the Valleys as it's drummed into people from an early age. He's what I would consider the archetypal Labour voter - Ex Miner, and Union rep at that, retired on a poor pension ( just over £60 a week ), Smoker who wears a flat cap and enjoys a pint, yet he says he could never vote Labour. The issue for me of having a Combo lets say 300 directly elected ( FPTP ) and 300 from a list covering regions and using something similar to the D'Hondt (sic) system is that despite the fact you'd get a more balanced Parliament you are also more likely to end up with the extremes ( both left and right ) being represented, once they get into Parliament it gives oxygen to their toxic views
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 20, 2021 14:50:45 GMT
And, of course, then we hit the minor detail of 2011... One of the Tory sops to the LD coalition partners was a referendum on removing FPTP. But... the proposition actually put to the public was so wishy-washy that it got voted down 2:1 on a wave of indifference - just 42% of the electorate bothered to vote. Bingo, permission to ignore it for the foreseeable future. As with many things you could argue that the 58% who didn't vote were happy with the status quo. (much as you could argue those who didn't vote for Brexit were happy to stay in) Indeed you could. But using it to claim 86% are happy with FPTP is a stretch, given it was asking about one specific form of voting reform, AV - which even the electoral reform society say "isn't PR". www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/Has he ever explained his logic? Who would he vote for? Very true. If there was an even balance of votes to seats, then there would have been 12 BNP MPs and 20 UKIP in 2010. Did they get denied the "oxygen of publicity"? Did that actually ever achieve anything? In the mid-late 00s, the BNP won a shedload of council seats across the UK, peaking at nearly 60 seats - as well as two MEPs. They all fell out, resigned from the party, or were drummed out of their seats. By 2018, they'd lost their last one. Giving protest votes to half-wits is one thing, but giving them actual power shows them up as what they are. They aren't the underdog saviour, they're shouty knuckle-dragging reprobates.
|
|
Steerpike
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,961
Likes: 1,680
|
Post by Steerpike on Oct 20, 2021 14:57:46 GMT
As I understand it, The Lord Chancellor is, in conjunction with planned reforms to the HRA, launching a consultation on his proposals within the next few weeks.
He said that where there have been judgments that we think are wrong, the right thing is for parliament to legislate to correct them.
This seems to me neither novel nor particularly remarkable.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,011
Likes: 4,821
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 20, 2021 16:06:37 GMT
As I understand it, The Lord Chancellor is, in conjunction with planned reforms to the HRA, launching a consultation on his proposals within the next few weeks.
He said that where there have been judgments that we think are wrong, the right thing is for parliament to legislate to correct them.
This seems to me neither novel nor particularly remarkable. It is both novel and remarkable, because he's not talking about changing how law affects similar cases going forwards, he's talking about retrospective changes, so that when the government get caught doing something illegal, they can hand-wave it away... www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/hr-reform-raab-plans-mechanism-to-correct-incorrect-judgments-/5110196.articleIt's also worth noting that all the HRA does is allow UK courts to judge breaches of the European Convention on Human Rights, which the UK is subject to as a member of the Council of Europe, and has been subject to since it was a founder member in the early 50s. Indeed, the UK pretty much unilaterally wrote the convention. Even if the HRA was repealed, the only functional difference is that a plaintiff would have to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights instead of a UK court - the same standards, the same convention articles, would still apply to the government. The European Court has one judge from every member country on its panel, nominated by their government. Here are the articles of the Convention. Which ones are so terrible? www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdfAlmost every geographically-European country is a member of the Council of Europe, so subject to the ECHR. This includes Putin's Russia, Erdogan's Turkey... The only countries with a toe in geographical Europe which aren't a member are the Vatican (theocracy, incompatible with article 9), Belarus (dictatorship, breaches most articles on a daily basis), and Kosovo (not even universally recognised as a country). Why is it so unrealistic for the UK be held to a lower standard of human rights than them? Does Raab genuinely not understand this, or is he simply dissembling?
|
|