agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,591
Likes: 4,182
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 7, 2020 10:27:20 GMT
Delusional RLB thinks she will win due to Corbyn support of membership she or is it “they” as the gender non specific reincarnation of J Corbyn. They always say that with addicts (gambling, drugs, alcohol) the biggest step you can take is admitting you have a problem. Looking at the potential replacements for JC, it does appear that there is a real problem with any of them addressing the real problem (I assume for fear of upsetting the rank and file).
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 7, 2020 12:53:36 GMT
It will probably be four and a half years before the next election and if history is anything to go by in that time a lot can happen, so I definitely wouldn't want to say that Labour can't win the next election as there are too many variables. The topics that we are debating now may be totally different to those in four years time depending on events. Likelihood is that something will happen in the interim period could be anything from a major economic event, war, terrorist attacks, terms of trade agreement with EU/other countries, I suspect the topic of the UK signing up to be carbon neutral by 2050 will be re-debated at some point as it turns from a woolly concept to one where it begins to be implemented, something completely left field.
I personally think that Labour has a major problem that it's membership, leadership and policies have reflected the views of their urban voters who are generally internationalist looking, pro-immigration, have very little respect for the nation state and look far more to international organisations, see climate change and identify politics as hugely important issues and generally have very little experience or knowledge of the lives and views of working class people. Many of its traditional voters have the opposite views on pretty much all of these issues. The major problem for Labour is that many of its supporters have actively insulted anybody who disagrees with their views and then are surprised when people don't vote for them. I have heard a lot of people say people have 'lent their vote' to the Conservatives, while it may be true that many voters have no great love of Johnson, to think that they will return to a party which has spent the last few years insulting them easily I have doubts.
I don't see any of the candidates as being able to do something which at the moment seems impossible, keep their traditional voters and urban voters both happy. From an electoral point of view I actually think there is an argument for totally abandoning their woke agenda and move the party to a much more patriotic, nationalist agenda, but there seems no desire in the party membership for this to happen.
I think it is very possible that whoever is elected now will not make it to the next election as subsequent local elections prove that the path they are on will not get them anywhere and as the people who signed up as members and registered supporters a few years ago gradually fade away. It is also very possible that the party splits at some point between a woke labour party and a more patriotic one. However doing that would threaten the very existence of the party at all.
Saying all that, and it does look totally bleak for Labour, it is always possible that events move in their favour, a leader is elected who somehow changes the agenda to less divisive issues etc. As I said before four and a half years is a very long time and sure things will be very different then.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 7, 2020 13:59:04 GMT
It will probably be four and a half years before the next election and if history is anything to go by in that time a lot can happen, so I definitely wouldn't want to say that Labour can't win the next election as there are too many variables. The topics that we are debating now may be totally different to those in four years time depending on events. Likelihood is that something will happen in the interim period could be anything from a major economic event, war, terrorist attacks, terms of trade agreement with EU/other countries, I suspect the topic of the UK signing up to be carbon neutral by 2050 will be re-debated at some point as it turns from a woolly concept to one where it begins to be implemented, something completely left field. I personally think that Labour has a major problem that it's membership, leadership and policies have reflected the views of their urban voters who are generally internationalist looking, pro-immigration, have very little respect for the nation state and look far more to international organisations, see climate change and identify politics as hugely important issues and generally have very little experience or knowledge of the lives and views of working class people. Many of its traditional voters have the opposite views on pretty much all of these issues. The major problem for Labour is that many of its supporters have actively insulted anybody who disagrees with their views and then are surprised when people don't vote for them. I have heard a lot of people say people have 'lent their vote' to the Conservatives, while it may be true that many voters have no great love of Johnson, to think that they will return to a party which has spent the last few years insulting them easily I have doubts. I don't see any of the candidates as being able to do something which at the moment seems impossible, keep their traditional voters and urban voters both happy. From an electoral point of view I actually think there is an argument for totally abandoning their woke agenda and move the party to a much more patriotic, nationalist agenda, but there seems no desire in the party membership for this to happen. I think it is very possible that whoever is elected now will not make it to the next election as subsequent local elections prove that the path they are on will not get them anywhere and as the people who signed up as members and registered supporters a few years ago gradually fade away. It is also very possible that the party splits at some point between a woke labour party and a more patriotic one. However doing that would threaten the very existence of the party at all. Saying all that, and it does look totally bleak for Labour, it is always possible that events move in their favour, a leader is elected who somehow changes the agenda to less divisive issues etc. As I said before four and a half years is a very long time and sure things will be very different then. I think Boris will ditch FTPA and give Brexit a decade to sink in before risking another GE. By that time Labour will have ripped itself apart and the momentum followers will have reached a age where they can appreciate a less leftist approach to life and will actually see you can’t get everything for free and there is a big bad world outside their social media self congratulating bubble.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
Member is Online
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2020 14:17:49 GMT
It will probably be four and a half years before the next election and if history is anything to go by in that time a lot can happen, so I definitely wouldn't want to say that Labour can't win the next election as there are too many variables. The topics that we are debating now may be totally different to those in four years time depending on events. Likelihood is that something will happen in the interim period could be anything from a major economic event, war, terrorist attacks, terms of trade agreement with EU/other countries, I suspect the topic of the UK signing up to be carbon neutral by 2050 will be re-debated at some point as it turns from a woolly concept to one where it begins to be implemented, something completely left field. I personally think that Labour has a major problem that it's membership, leadership and policies have reflected the views of their urban voters who are generally internationalist looking, pro-immigration, have very little respect for the nation state and look far more to international organisations, see climate change and identify politics as hugely important issues and generally have very little experience or knowledge of the lives and views of working class people. Many of its traditional voters have the opposite views on pretty much all of these issues. The major problem for Labour is that many of its supporters have actively insulted anybody who disagrees with their views and then are surprised when people don't vote for them. I have heard a lot of people say people have 'lent their vote' to the Conservatives, while it may be true that many voters have no great love of Johnson, to think that they will return to a party which has spent the last few years insulting them easily I have doubts. I don't see any of the candidates as being able to do something which at the moment seems impossible, keep their traditional voters and urban voters both happy. From an electoral point of view I actually think there is an argument for totally abandoning their woke agenda and move the party to a much more patriotic, nationalist agenda, but there seems no desire in the party membership for this to happen. I think it is very possible that whoever is elected now will not make it to the next election as subsequent local elections prove that the path they are on will not get them anywhere and as the people who signed up as members and registered supporters a few years ago gradually fade away. It is also very possible that the party splits at some point between a woke labour party and a more patriotic one. However doing that would threaten the very existence of the party at all. Saying all that, and it does look totally bleak for Labour, it is always possible that events move in their favour, a leader is elected who somehow changes the agenda to less divisive issues etc. As I said before four and a half years is a very long time and sure things will be very different then. I think Boris will ditch FTPA and give Brexit a decade to sink in before risking another GE. By that time Labour will have ripped itself apart and the momentum followers will have reached a age where they can appreciate a less leftist approach to life and will actually see you can’t get everything for free and there is a big bad world outside their social media self congratulating bubble. No election for 10 years would be quite the constitutional coup
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,867
Likes: 2,308
|
Post by keitha on Jan 7, 2020 14:36:51 GMT
Fixed term Act merely fixes term at 5 years, before that the PM could call an election within the 5 years ( often at a time that suited them )
BJ will not keep this parliament for a decade.
but I can't see Labour overturning the conservative majority in a single term whoever leads it.
redrawing electoral boundaries will help the Tories, and is long overdue ( I'm sure I can remember the Lib dems blocking it in 2015 as they felt it would give them less seats ), I like one person 1 vote as it produces clear results, AV or regional lists etc tend to produce a fudge, and can get representation for more extreme parties, and I really don't want the likes of Tommy Robinson in Parliament. As an example TR stands in a metropolitan area and gets 10% at the moment he stands no chance, but if the area is bigger and elects 6 MPs and using D'hondt formula lets say labour and conservatives get 29% each, Lib dems 19%, TR 10% and the rest distributed amongst others
So Round 1 /2 tories and labour get 1 each round 3 Lib dems get a seat Round 4/5 Tories and labour get another Round 6 TR gets in
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
Member is Online
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2020 15:41:18 GMT
Fixed term Act merely fixes term at 5 years, before that the PM could call an election within the 5 years ( often at a time that suited them ) BJ will not keep this parliament for a decade. but I can't see Labour overturning the conservative majority in a single term whoever leads it. redrawing electoral boundaries will help the Tories, and is long overdue ( I'm sure I can remember the Lib dems blocking it in 2015 as they felt it would give them less seats ), I like one person 1 vote as it produces clear results, AV or regional lists etc tend to produce a fudge, and can get representation for more extreme parties, and I really don't want the likes of Tommy Robinson in Parliament. As an example TR stands in a metropolitan area and gets 10% at the moment he stands no chance, but if the area is bigger and elects 6 MPs and using D'hondt formula lets say labour and conservatives get 29% each, Lib dems 19%, TR 10% and the rest distributed amongst others So Round 1 /2 tories and labour get 1 each round 3 Lib dems get a seat Round 4/5 Tories and labour get another Round 6 TR gets in So don't use that system! Use the one that the Jenkins Commission proposed for the UK - 1 vote for 500 constituency MPs so we keep the "local MP", elected using AV (preferential voting) so that every member has at least 50% of the consituency vote, and top up with 150 party MPs to make parliament proportional. This was the system devised for the Scottish Parliament, and the reason given for not using it for the UK was to see how it worked in Scotland first. It works fine in Scotland, and I don't see extremists holding sway there or the system given "unclear" results. In any case, I find it profoundly undemocratic to try and stop 10% of the electorate getting their views represented in Parliament just because your or I disagree with them. The narrative of the Brexit protest vote was that people felt their views/needs were ignored by the establishment - but deliberately having a system that excludes their view will surely just exacerbate this. If (big if - I have my doubts) Tommy Robinson really has 10% support nationally, then his views should have representation in parliament - as long as he is eligible (i.e. his criminality doesn't rule him out - which is a different point).
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 7, 2020 15:54:43 GMT
I think Boris will ditch FTPA and give Brexit a decade to sink in before risking another GE. By that time Labour will have ripped itself apart and the momentum followers will have reached a age where they can appreciate a less leftist approach to life and will actually see you can’t get everything for free and there is a big bad world outside their social media self congratulating bubble. No election for 10 years would be quite the constitutional coup A PM that got a "stonking majority" despite being the most unpopular winning candidate in modern history, combined with a non-existent opposition. What could possibly go wrong?
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 7, 2020 16:03:48 GMT
The longest parliament was 9 and a half years there is no reason to assume it can’t happen again.
There is unlikely to be a similar set of circumstances that would be as favourable as was present for the last election.
Labour won’t be winning any votes from the public or climate change activists by saying they would have advocated spending money and carbon pollution to send RAF jet to bring Boris home so he could say exactly the same as he could on the other end of a phone.
The best performance of any government is the ability of the leadership to delegate to the appropriate knowledgeable individuals and not dictate. Labour has paid the price of only doing as JC wants.
Iran always take reprisals after considerable contemplation . Nothing was going to happen until after today’s funeral.
So calling for BJ to come back a day early was just political posturing trying to score a last wound from a nearly dead opponent.
When asked there was no coherent answer as to what BJ could do from home that he couldn’t do from abroad.
|
|
mrk
Posts: 807
Likes: 753
|
Post by mrk on Jan 7, 2020 16:15:47 GMT
The longest parliament was 9 and a half years there is no reason to assume it can’t happen again. The term was temporarily extended to 10 years only during World War II, otherwise it's always been 5 years since 1911. And before that 7 years since 1715. But we can't rule out World World III at this stage I suppose...
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 7, 2020 16:35:12 GMT
The longest parliament was 9 and a half years there is no reason to assume it can’t happen again. The term was temporarily extended to 10 years only during World War II, otherwise it's always been 5 years since 1911. And before that 7 years since 1715. But we can't rule out World World III at this stage I suppose... If there is WW3 civilisation won't last 5 years
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on Jan 7, 2020 16:53:50 GMT
Fixed term Act merely fixes term at 5 years, before that the PM could call an election within the 5 years ( often at a time that suited them ) BJ will not keep this parliament for a decade. but I can't see Labour overturning the conservative majority in a single term whoever leads it. redrawing electoral boundaries will help the Tories, and is long overdue ( I'm sure I can remember the Lib dems blocking it in 2015 as they felt it would give them less seats ), I like one person 1 vote as it produces clear results, AV or regional lists etc tend to produce a fudge, and can get representation for more extreme parties, and I really don't want the likes of Tommy Robinson in Parliament. As an example TR stands in a metropolitan area and gets 10% at the moment he stands no chance, but if the area is bigger and elects 6 MPs and using D'hondt formula lets say labour and conservatives get 29% each, Lib dems 19%, TR 10% and the rest distributed amongst others So Round 1 /2 tories and labour get 1 each round 3 Lib dems get a seat Round 4/5 Tories and labour get another Round 6 TR gets in So don't use that system! Use the one that the Jenkins Commission proposed for the UK - 1 vote for 500 constituency MPs so we keep the "local MP", elected using AV (preferential voting) so that every member has at least 50% of the consituency vote, and top up with 150 party MPs to make parliament proportional. This was the system devised for the Scottish Parliament, and the reason given for not using it for the UK was to see how it worked in Scotland first. It works fine in Scotland, and I don't see extremists holding sway there or the system given "unclear" results. In any case, I f ind it profoundly undemocratic to try and stop 10% of the electorate getting their views represented in Parliament just because your or I disagree with them. The narrative of the Brexit protest vote was that people felt their views/needs were ignored by the establishment - but deliberately having a system that excludes their view will surely just exacerbate this. If (big if - I have my doubts) Tommy Robinson really has 10% support nationally, then his views should have representation in parliament - as long as he is eligible (i.e. his criminality doesn't rule him out - which is a different point). With PR the only way in which we can have a government which can be held to it's manifesto is if it gets more than 50% of the vote - has not happened since 1931 and will likely never happen again. So we would have a government with policies which not a single person voted for. Democratic? Edit: For clarification I should have said a package of policies. You "find it profoundly undemocratic to try and stop 10% of the electorate getting their views represented in Parliament". Well what about the 30+% who abstain or spoil their ballot papers (more than Blair got in his 2001 landslide). What is your idea for their representation?
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,867
Likes: 2,308
|
Post by keitha on Jan 7, 2020 17:15:15 GMT
You "find it profoundly undemocratic to try and stop 10% of the electorate getting their views represented in Parliament". Well what about the 30+% who abstain or spoil their ballot papers (more than Blair got in his 2001 landslide). What is your idea for their representation? Make voting compulsory ? wider choice of views ? Definitely soften politics, people screaming at others that they are "effing morons" for voting differently to them ( be that in elections or referenda ( or is it referendums ) more referendums, on topics such as HS2, BBC licence fee
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,664
Likes: 2,988
Member is Online
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 7, 2020 17:22:41 GMT
So don't use that system! Use the one that the Jenkins Commission proposed for the UK - 1 vote for 500 constituency MPs so we keep the "local MP", elected using AV (preferential voting) so that every member has at least 50% of the consituency vote, and top up with 150 party MPs to make parliament proportional. This was the system devised for the Scottish Parliament, and the reason given for not using it for the UK was to see how it worked in Scotland first. It works fine in Scotland, and I don't see extremists holding sway there or the system given "unclear" results. In any case, I f ind it profoundly undemocratic to try and stop 10% of the electorate getting their views represented in Parliament just because your or I disagree with them. The narrative of the Brexit protest vote was that people felt their views/needs were ignored by the establishment - but deliberately having a system that excludes their view will surely just exacerbate this. If (big if - I have my doubts) Tommy Robinson really has 10% support nationally, then his views should have representation in parliament - as long as he is eligible (i.e. his criminality doesn't rule him out - which is a different point). With PR the only way in which we can have a government which can be held to it's manifesto is if it gets more than 50% of the vote - has not happened since 1931 and will likely never happen again. So we would have a government with policies which not a single person voted for. Democratic? You "find it profoundly undemocratic to try and stop 10% of the electorate getting their views represented in Parliament". Well what about the 30+% who abstain or spoil their ballot papers (more than Blair got in his 2001 landslide). What is your idea for their representation? For the first point - if 40% of people vote for a party's manifesto and 60% against, why is it imperative to do what only a minority voted for? if a manifesto doesn't get over 50% it absolutely wasn't the will of the majority. Form a coalition of parties and you get a large proportion of what the majority voted for (NOT "policies which not a single person voted for" - that's clearly not even close to the likely outcome). So yes that is more democratic to me. Furthermore, if one must be held to a single manifesto over 5 years, how can governments come up with new policies whilst in government? Many policies, in response to many challenges faced by governments, were never promised nor anticipated in manifestos. Finally, how does virtually every single other country in the world manage with proportional systems if they are so difficult and anti-democratic? As one Scandinavian politician put it - "what you call a hung parliament we just call a parliament". The result is less of the bitter partisanship we see in the UK (and the US), and a real choice of more than two parties - which can be de facto one party if the other makes itself unelectable. And you haven't even got me onto the disgrace that is safe seats, which effectively disenfranchises huge swathes of voters! For the second point: if the proportion of non-voters worries you, then bring in compulsory voting. It would be a duty like jury service - with a box for "none of the above" if you really don't think you like any of the options. And if voting for smaller parties can actually result in seats (as it would in a proportional system) it is much more likely you'll find someone worth voting for.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 7, 2020 18:35:41 GMT
PR gives too much power to the least number of people. Take Scotland as an example the greens forced through a Tax rise and other things they wanted as they held the balance of votes. Like the hiatus before the election where there was never going to be a consensus when MPs have their own interests in mind rather than those of the electorate. There is a large asteroid ☄️ on the way that will make climate change and political wrangling a mute point.
|
|
pip
Posts: 542
Likes: 725
|
Post by pip on Jan 7, 2020 19:09:48 GMT
It will probably be four and a half years before the next election and if history is anything to go by in that time a lot can happen, so I definitely wouldn't want to say that Labour can't win the next election as there are too many variables. The topics that we are debating now may be totally different to those in four years time depending on events. Likelihood is that something will happen in the interim period could be anything from a major economic event, war, terrorist attacks, terms of trade agreement with EU/other countries, I suspect the topic of the UK signing up to be carbon neutral by 2050 will be re-debated at some point as it turns from a woolly concept to one where it begins to be implemented, something completely left field. I personally think that Labour has a major problem that it's membership, leadership and policies have reflected the views of their urban voters who are generally internationalist looking, pro-immigration, have very little respect for the nation state and look far more to international organisations, see climate change and identify politics as hugely important issues and generally have very little experience or knowledge of the lives and views of working class people. Many of its traditional voters have the opposite views on pretty much all of these issues. The major problem for Labour is that many of its supporters have actively insulted anybody who disagrees with their views and then are surprised when people don't vote for them. I have heard a lot of people say people have 'lent their vote' to the Conservatives, while it may be true that many voters have no great love of Johnson, to think that they will return to a party which has spent the last few years insulting them easily I have doubts. I don't see any of the candidates as being able to do something which at the moment seems impossible, keep their traditional voters and urban voters both happy. From an electoral point of view I actually think there is an argument for totally abandoning their woke agenda and move the party to a much more patriotic, nationalist agenda, but there seems no desire in the party membership for this to happen. I think it is very possible that whoever is elected now will not make it to the next election as subsequent local elections prove that the path they are on will not get them anywhere and as the people who signed up as members and registered supporters a few years ago gradually fade away. It is also very possible that the party splits at some point between a woke labour party and a more patriotic one. However doing that would threaten the very existence of the party at all. Saying all that, and it does look totally bleak for Labour, it is always possible that events move in their favour, a leader is elected who somehow changes the agenda to less divisive issues etc. As I said before four and a half years is a very long time and sure things will be very different then. I think Boris will ditch FTPA and give Brexit a decade to sink in before risking another GE. By that time Labour will have ripped itself apart and the momentum followers will have reached a age where they can appreciate a less leftist approach to life and will actually see you can’t get everything for free and there is a big bad world outside their social media self congratulating bubble. Godanubis it is impressive that your political comments are just as poorly researched as your comments were on Funding Secure.
|
|