Politics

[Renton 17522]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

The HoL is largely impotent and I wouldn't be against an elected upper chamber voted for mid term. Having an elected president is largely pointless unless you're going to give them real power and even then it doesn't guarantee any better decision making. We'd probably end up with Johnson as president if we we to vote for one right now. Your views are represented, just by the opposition.

 

The large majority of people in this country live in safe seats and their vote quite literally makes no difference at all. And once a party gets a majority, on a minority of votes, they can do what they please. I'm not represented at any level of decison making. 

[Renton 17522]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

 

Is there any democracy where there are punishments for campaign lies?

 

Don't know. We can be the first. Make manifesto promises legally enforcable. Why not? 

[ewerk 26103]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

The large majority of people in this country live in safe seats and their vote quite literally makes no difference at all. And once a party gets a majority, on a minority of votes, they can do what they please. I'm not represented at any level of decison making. 

 

So blame the people who keep voting for the same party in safe seats. It's their fault. My entire voting life I've been represented by a MP who doesn't even take their seat in parliament yet that party has won the seat in every election since. Again, I'm not a fan of FPTP but the country tends to get the government it deserves.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3176]

31 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

We do live in a democracy though. Every five years or less we get to throw out the cunts in charge. Our elections are free and fair. The fact that we have had the Tories for 12 years is down to the fact that the public are cunts. Of course PR is a fairer system but to say we don't live in a democracy is a false accusation.

We are just the least representative democracy in western europe

[The Fish 8926]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Don't know. We can be the first. Make manifesto promises legally enforcable. Why not? 

 

Because there could be legitimate reasons why campaign promises could not be kept. Say Labour win and promise a fuck load of spending on services, but the global economy tanks and now they can't afford it. And surely anybody with enough competence could come up with a whole host of reasons why promise A couldn't be delivered because of instance B.

[Renton 17522]

Just now, ewerk said:

 

So blame the people who keep voting for the same party in safe seats. It's their fault. My entire voting life I've been represented by a MP who doesn't even take their seat in parliament yet that party has won the seat in every election since. Again, I'm not a fan of FPTP but the country tends to get the government it deserves.

 

That's where I fundamentally disagre. Most people in this country are fairly moderate, liberal, and progressive. That's a fact. But somehow we now have a government led by Truss which is to the right of Thatcher and bonkers to boot. They are enacting policies which are literally the opposite to their manifesto of the last 12 years. How can you say people deserve this? 

[ewerk 26103]

5 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Don't know. We can be the first. Make manifesto promises legally enforcable. Why not? 

 

Manifesto pledges aren't the problem, it tends to be false claims and slurs against opponents that are the issue when it comes to misinformation at election time. Look at how many times Johnson subjected himself to an actual interview at the last election and he won in a landslide. You can say there should be a minimum number of leaders' debates but again, blame the public for endorsing his cowardly tactics.

[Renton 17522]

Just now, The Fish said:

 

Because there could be legitimate reasons why campaign promises could not be kept. Say Labour win and promise a fuck load of spending on services, but the global economy tanks and now they can't afford it. And surely anybody with enough competence could come up with a whole host of reasons why promise A couldn't be delivered because of instance B.

 

Agreed, but that's small print. You could introduce mechanisms to sort out this kind of stuff, but with the overall purpose of making sure governments stick to the spirit of their manifesto. 

[ewerk 26103]

1 minute ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

We are just the least representative democracy in western europe

 

Which is why I back PR. Our democracy is far from perfect but it is a democracy.

[Renton 17522]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Carr's Gloves said:

We are just the least representative democracy in western europe

 

As long as we're better than Belarus that's good enough for Starmer. 

[Rayvin 4948]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

Don't know. We can be the first. Make manifesto promises legally enforcable. Why not? 

 

It's the one thing I'd support bringing back the death penalty for. Lying while in office. Too extreme? The Tories have killed hundreds of thousands with their policies over the years - this should not be shrugged off if they're doing it off the back of lies and corruption.

 

15 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

We have had two opportunities since 2016 to change the ruling party. On both occasions the incumbents 'won'. You may not like their lies but clearly a lot of people do.

 

Of course there's an argument for tightening up our constitution and restricting executive power but in our parliamentary democracy it's a case of winner takes all. That will continue under PR but then it will like be winners plural.

 

In both of those opportunities, the majority voted against the ruling party, voted against it's main manifesto promises, and yet have had to accept the most extreme, hardline policies. We had a 52:48 Brexit referendum that resulted in the most furiously right wing Brexit imaginable. Johnson's 2019 victory saw Remain parties receive more votes than Brexit parties. This is not democratic.

 

Yes there was more than just one issue on the ballot and yes that is the system we have that everyone votes within, but what we are saying here is that not only do we have a period of 5 years of absolute, unchecked power - tyranny - we have it given to a party that best plays a flawed voting system that doesn't actually even reflect the desires of the majority of the people of the country, all of whom go entirely without representation in policy-making every time this happens. It is ludicrous.

[ewerk 26103]

3 minutes ago, Renton said:

 

That's where I fundamentally disagre. Most people in this country are fairly moderate, liberal, and progressive. That's a fact. 

 

It's a slim majority. The problem is that those who aren't as you describe congregate around the Conservative party, the progressive vote is split between Labour, Lib Dems, Green etc.

[spongebob toonpants 3565]

Free and fair elections?Free is dubious, there are plenty (mainly poor and students) disenfranchised.

 

Fair - nope

 

Quote

How many votes cast per seat won?

The disproportionality between votes and seats can also be calculated in terms of votes-per-seat-won. In 2019 the Conservatives got one seat for every 38,264 votes, while Labour got one seat for every 50,837 votes. It took many more votes to elect a Lib Dem (336,038) and Green MP (866,435), but far fewer to elect an SNP MP (25,883).

 

[ewerk 26103]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

It's the one thing I'd support bringing back the death penalty for. Lying while in office. Too extreme? The Tories have killed hundreds of thousands with their policies over the years - this should not be shrugged off if they're doing it off the back of lies and corruption.

 

 

In both of those opportunities, the majority voted against the ruling party, voted against it's main manifesto promises, and yet have had to accept the most extreme, hardline policies. We had a 52:48 Brexit referendum that resulted in the most furiously right wing Brexit imaginable. Johnson's 2019 victory saw Remain parties receive more votes than Brexit parties. This is not democratic.

 

Yes there was more than just one issue on the ballot and yes that is the system we have that everyone votes within, but what we are saying here is that not only do we have a period of 5 years of absolute, unchecked power - tyranny - we have it given to a party that best plays a flawed voting system that doesn't actually even reflect the desires of the majority of the people of the country, all of whom go entirely without representation in policy-making every time this happens. It is ludicrous.

 

Which is why we need PR! I'm not arguing against that. And failing that we need progressive parties to form electoral pacts on a much larger scale than we've seen in the past.

[Rayvin 4948]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Which is why we need PR! I'm not arguing against that. And failing that we need progressive parties to form electoral pacts on a much larger scale than we've seen in the past.

 

Ok I accept now that this is another one of those arguments where we all agree on everything but furiously debate it anyway

[Dr Gloom 19714]

34 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

IMO we live in a dictatorship with a 5 year reset. We have absolute tyranny for 5 years where politics runs roughshod over everyone who didn't vote for the prevailing party, where leaders and manifestos can be changed and altered without recourse multiple times within that window, and where authoritarian control seeks to bend reality and information as it sees fit.

 

Nothing about the way government has been run since 2016 has felt remotely democratic. It's been a coup d'etat by hardline nutjobs with the right wing press giving them the same sort of cover that Putin relies on in Russia to get his 'electoral victories'.

 

 

I get what you mean. proportional representation would hopefully go some way to addressing that: more coalition forces government and sensible, consensus politics 

[NJS 3953]

2 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

It's a slim majority. The problem is that those who aren't as you describe congregate around the Conservative party, the progressive vote is split between Labour, Lib Dems, Green etc.

I know the party etc are generally cunts but a lot of "decent" people do vote tory (as well as cunts obviously) so I don't think it's as black and white as we sometimes portray on here. 

 

I like the idea of PR in theory but worry it will prevent the kind of radical change I'd like to see but I guess I won't see that anyway now. 

[ewerk 26103]

And guess what? Under PR we would still have ended up with a Tory government in the 2019 election. The main problem is the idiot public.

[Rayvin 4948]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

And guess what? Under PR we would still have ended up with a Tory government in the 2019 election. The main problem is the idiot public.

 

But under PR, would it ever have come to that in the first place? May wouldn't have been able to pursue her hardline approach to Brexit, it would have been a Norway style model, everyone would have been able to accept that, the nation could have healed.

[Dr Gloom 19714]

37 minutes ago, ewerk said:

 

Sorry mate, I just don't naturally associate you with humour.

Can I introduce you to comedy Dave?

 

 

[ewerk 26103]

1 minute ago, NJS said:

I know the party etc are generally cunts but a lot of "decent" people do vote tory (as well as cunts obviously) so I don't think it's as black and white as we sometimes portray on here. 

 

A lot of decent people vote Tory and a lot of cunts vote for Labour. One of the biggest problem with the electorate is that even those who aren't particularly political treat it like supporting a football team. It's a case of I've always voted Labour/Tory so I'm going to vote for them again while paying no attention to what each party is actually proposing. Which is why Labour's collapse in the 'Red Wall' was such a shock. The Tories have got rid of most of the moderate MPs in their party, hopefully the moderate voters will soon follow suit now that they don't have the Corbyn bogeyman to worry about.

[Isegrim 8862]

5 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Ok I accept now that this is another one of those arguments where we all agree on everything by furiously debate it anyway

Is that an apology?

[Renton 17522]

3 minutes ago, ewerk said:

And guess what? Under PR we would still have ended up with a Tory government in the 2019 election. The main problem is the idiot public.

 

You'll need to explain that to me. They'd be the largest party but would have to form a coalition with others, and I don't recall the right wing vote getting above 50% in total. The Lib Dems again maybe, but they would have toned down the lunacy of the last 3 years. 

[ewerk 26103]

2 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

But under PR, would it ever have come to that in the first place? May wouldn't have been able to pursue her hardline approach to Brexit, it would have been a Norway style model, everyone would have been able to accept that, the nation could have healed.

 

I think you're probably right but that's ignoring the fact that the Brexit party would have taken a significant number of seats under a PR system.

[NJS 3953]

It is surprising (not) how quiet the media have been about the radicalisation of the tory Party.