All things Labour Party

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

More areas of the country wanted a Tory to represent them. I know you lefties only like the system when it produces the result you want, but the Lib Dem’s had the opportunity to propose something different and blew it. 
 

 

It would just be nice to have a system where every vote counts the same no matter where you happen to live. It's the one thing I agree with Farage on.

[Lord Duckhunter]

The House of Lords should be the chamber that reflects the electorate as a whole. That’s the real scandal, not FPTP. It’s clearly a delicate balancing act to have an elected second chamber that is secondary to the commons, but that’s the broken part of the system. 

[aintforever]

4 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The House of Lords should be the chamber that reflects the electorate as a whole. That’s the real scandal, not FPTP. It’s clearly a delicate balancing act to have an elected second chamber that is secondary to the commons, but that’s the broken part of the system. 

So the system is broken now, thought it was just lefties moaning.

[Lord Duckhunter]

13 minutes ago, aintforever said:

It would just be nice to have a system where every vote counts the same no matter where you happen to live. It's the one thing I agree with Farage on.

Every vote does count the same. 

 

 

Edited 11 May, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[badgerx16]

11 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Every vote does count the same. 

 

 

If you are in a safe Surrey Tory seat, how does a vote for the Greens count ? How do the almost 60% of votes cast, that went against the Tories, register in Parliament ? In theory a party could get 49% of the vote and gain 0 seats.

Edited 11 May, 2021 by badgerx16

[sadoldgit]

12 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I happen to believe the present system gives us the best Governance and ensures the most equality for the whole of the uk. Local people vote for somebody to represent their interests at Westminster. It’s a principle that goes back years and has served us well. If that resulted in less Brexit party MP’s, so be it.
 

I’m sure you and others would be attacking me if I wanted PR just to ensure Nigel got a Westminster seat. No area of the UK wanted him to represent them, and whilst I think they’re wrong, its their decision to make. 

Votes should mean something. If there are large numbers of people voting for particular policies then they should have a proportionate voice in parliament. Problems occur when large swathes of people don’t feel that they are being heard. Democracy is meant to be about rule of the people by the people. It’s great if 99.9% in agreement but the closer you get to 51/49% the less it conforms to the people’s collective will. There is no perfect system but at least PR gives a proportional balance in the House to the views of the electorate. I have always lived in strong Tory areas and my vote means nothing whether I vote tactically or vote for my party of choice. It is little wonder that so many people don’t bother to go to the polls. Maybe more would make the effort if they thought that their vote would actually make a difference?

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

If you are in a safe Surrey Tory seat, how does a vote for the Greens count ? How do the almost 60% of votes cast, that went against the Tories, register in Parliament ? In theory a party could get 49% of the vote and gain 0 seats.

Just because the person you voted for didn’t win, doesn’t mean your vote didn’t count. 
 

[Fan The Flames]

17 hours ago, buctootim said:

That proves my point rather than disproves it. There has only been one major realignment in over 200 years. In countries with PR they happen regularly

 

I agree. My point was even with our FPTP system, being one of the big two won't necessarily stop you being wiped off the political map. If Labour remain complacent they could get replaced.

[buctootim]

34 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Just because the person you voted for didn’t win, doesn’t mean your vote didn’t count. 
 

Of course it does. In nearly every other modern democracy

1 million votes = say 10 seats

10 million votes = 100 seats

20 million votes = 200 seats.

 

In wonderful old UK

1 million = 0 

10 million = 50 

20 million = 400 

 

Obviously the exact numbers are different, especially for regional parties like SNP but essentially it is that pattern for national parties 

Edited 11 May, 2021 by buctootim

[CB Fry]

30 minutes ago, buctootim said:

Of course it does. In nearly every other modern democracy

1 million votes = say 10 seats

10 million votes = 100 seats

20 million votes = 200 seats.

 

In wonderful old UK

1 million = 0 

10 million = 50 

20 million = 400 

 

Obviously the exact numbers are different, especially for regional parties like SNP but essentially it is that pattern for national parties 

USA is pretty much first past the post as well isn't it. And the Congress system is nuts.

[Doctoroncall]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

I agree. My point was even with our FPTP system, being one of the big two won't necessarily stop you being wiped off the political map. If Labour remain complacent they could get replaced.

Who with?
 

A bit of a power vacuum for the opposition parties all being a bit pathetic and not featuring in the media. 

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

USA is pretty much first past the post as well isn't it.

True, but it is a 2 party system, so the disparity between votes cast and seats won is reduced.

[Lighthouse]

Personally I’m okay with the current system as it at least gives somebody a meaningful majority to be able to enact some policies. Even taking ‘97 as an example, Labour only won 43% of the vote. I’d want whoever gets elected to have a bit of wellie, then if they’re useless we can at least judge them by their own governance and not stalemate by committee.

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Just because the person you voted for didn’t win, doesn’t mean your vote didn’t count. 
 

Of course it does, second ( or third ) placed votes only serve to reduce the winning majority, none of those voters get any level of the representation they desired.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

Of course it does. In nearly every other modern democracy

1 million votes = say 10 seats

10 million votes = 100 seats

20 million votes = 200 seats.

 

In wonderful old UK

1 million = 0 

10 million = 50 

20 million = 400 

 

Obviously the exact numbers are different, especially for regional parties like SNP but essentially it is that pattern for national parties 

You’re all over place. 
 

Your last point makes the case for FPTP. Sweaties vote for the candidate they best think serves their area best. Strictly speaking we don’t vote for parties we vote for representatives. Personally I want Poole represented by someone the people of Poole send to Westminster. That way the Government have to concentrate on the whole of the country, rather than areas with high populations. 

[Baird of the land]

I long for a change from the awful unrepresentative fptp system, which mean voting is a post code lottery in terms of being worth the effort. Not sure I see a way Labour gets in, in short term but would be good if they firmly committed to system change if they do.

Edited 11 May, 2021 by Baird of the land

[Weston Super Saint]

23 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Of course it does, second ( or third ) placed votes only serve to reduce the winning majority, none of those voters get any level of the representation they desired.

And yet, when you cast your vote you don't know what everyone else is voting for, so yours is equally as valid at that point....

[buctootim]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

USA is pretty much first past the post as well isn't it. And the Congress system is nuts.

Yep, they are why I qualified the statement. Theirs is even more unfit for purpose than ours!

[buctootim]

35 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’re all over place. 
 

Your last point makes the case for FPTP. 

Nope. It makes the case against domination of the majority by the minority. 

[badgerx16]

4 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And yet, when you cast your vote you don't know what everyone else is voting for, so yours is equally as valid at that point....

Not if you intend to vote Green in a safe Tory seat. For a large proportion of the seats in a GE the result can be predicted with a great degree of certainty.

Edited 11 May, 2021 by badgerx16

[trousers]

29 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Not sure I see a way Labour gets in

How about by appealing to the electorate more than the Tories currently do?

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Doctoroncall said:

Who with?
 

A bit of a power vacuum for the opposition parties all being a bit pathetic and not featuring in the media. 

Who knows. The Labour Party was formed in 1900, their popularity grew quickly and they eventually replaced the Liberal Party, who had previously replaced (by taking over) the Whig Party.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but it's also not impossible.

[Lord Duckhunter]

28 minutes ago, trousers said:

How about by appealing to the electorate more than the Tories currently do?

Nah, they’d rather moan about the electoral system. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Not if you intened to vote Green in a safe Tory seat. For a large proportion of the seats in a GE the result can be predicted with a great degree of certainty.

That's not the fault of "one person, one vote" though.

That's the fault of the parties not being attractive.

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Nah, they’d rather moan about the electoral system. 

Like the Tories moaning about the mayoral voting system.

[badgerx16]

35 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That's not the fault of "one person, one vote" though.

That's the fault of the parties not being attractive.

Extreme hypothetical example;

Party #1 wins 51% of the vote in 326 seats, 0% in the others. Wins majority with slightly over 25% of the vote.

Party #2 wins 0% of the vote in those 326 seats, 51% of the vote in the others. Wins slightly under 25% of the vote.

Party #3 wins 49% of the vote in all 650 seats - gains no seats.

Edited 11 May, 2021 by badgerx16

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Extreme hypothetical example;

Party #1 wins 51% of the vote in 326 seats, 0% in the others. Wins majority with slightly over 25% of the vote.

Party #2 wins 0% of the vote in those 326 seats, 51% of the vote in the others. Wins slightly under 25% of the vote.

Party #3 wins 49% of the vote in all 650 seats - gains no seats.

Country A plays in 5 consecutive World Cup finals, loses all 5 on penalties

Country B plays in 1 World Cup final, wins on penalties, fails to qualify for the next 4.

Country A is clearly, the consistently better country over a sustained period of time yet Country B is the one with the medals. At some point, push comes to shove and you have to pick a winner. In your scenario party 3 has a general groundwater of mediocre support but not one constituency actually wants them in power.

[badgerx16]

17 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Country A plays in 5 consecutive World Cup finals, loses all 5 on penalties

Country B plays in 1 World Cup final, wins on penalties, fails to qualify for the next 4.

Country A is clearly, the consistently better country over a sustained period of time yet Country B is the one with the medals. At some point, push comes to shove and you have to pick a winner. In your scenario party 3 has a general groundwater of mediocre support but not one constituency actually wants them in power.

You think FPTP works, I think it's crap. Let's agree to differ.

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That's not the fault of "one person, one vote" though.

That's the fault of the parties not being attractive.

But the point is, under the current system a party can be attractive to a large percentage of the population but get little or no representation in parliament. It’s not rocket science.

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

But the point is, under the current system a party can be attractive to a large percentage of the population but get little or no representation in parliament. It’s not rocket science.

Farage never won a seat and his parties only ever held what, 2 seats?

He has been one of the most influential politicians in decades, regardless if you agree with him

[Weston Super Saint]

9 hours ago, aintforever said:

But the point is, under the current system a party can be attractive to a large percentage of the population but get little or no representation in parliament. It’s not rocket science.

It would appear you have missed the point entirely, once again!

The fact that the 'system' is 'wrong', still does not detract from the blindingly obvious fact that each and every vote counts the same (at the time they are cast), given that no one knows who anyone else is voting for.

You'd know this if you had the bottle to turn up and vote on important issues  

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

,.the blindingly obvious fact that each and every vote counts the same (at the time they are cast), given that no one knows who anyone else is voting for.

 

Repeating bs doesn't alter the fact that it is bs.

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Farage never won a seat and his parties only ever held what, 2 seats?

He has been one of the most influential politicians in decades, regardless if you agree with him

Exactly. 
 

The PR brigade need to find their own Nigel, put pressure on the Labour Party to promise a referendum on PR. I’d say reform is more popular than leaving the EU was when Nigel set out on his epic journey. FPTP drove the Brexit vote, not because UKIP would win any seats, but because they would stop the tories winning them. If we’d had PR UKIP would have had  a tiny voice in a Parliament made up of Remain parties. As the vote proved, the majority of voters wanted out, yet only FPTP could deliver that monumental change. 
 

The people the PR supporters should be angry with are the Lib Dem’s. They had a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the system but  settled for a token box ticking watered down proposal,  which had no chance of winning any referendum. The lure of the ministerial cars overcame their life long pursuit of abolishing FPTP.  

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

The people the PR supporters should be angry with are the Lib Dem’s. They had a once in a lifetime opportunity to change the system but  settled for a token box ticking watered down proposal,  which had no chance of winning any referendum. The lure of the ministerial cars overcame their life long pursuit of abolishing FPTP.  

Agreed

[aintforever]

13 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Farage never won a seat and his parties only ever held what, 2 seats?

He has been one of the most influential politicians in decades, regardless if you agree with him

That proves my point, given the votes UKIP got he should have been in Parliament and so should a whole load of his MPs.

[aintforever]

5 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

It would appear you have missed the point entirely, once again!

The fact that the 'system' is 'wrong', still does not detract from the blindingly obvious fact that each and every vote counts the same (at the time they are cast), given that no one knows who anyone else is voting for.

You'd know this if you had the bottle to turn up and vote on important issues  

I've always voted on issues that are important to me.

I many areas we always have a pretty good idea of how the votes will pan out, you are talking complete shite as usual.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

That proves my point, given the votes UKIP got he should have been in Parliament and so should a whole load of his MPs.

That wouldn’t have got us a Brexit vote. The only thing that got us our referenda was the threat of the UKIP vote costing The Tories many Labour/Tory marginals. If we had PR Cameron wouldn’t have needed to promise one. 
 

People keep banging on about votes not counting and policies they like being ignored or wasting their vote, but we have a very clear example of a situation where FPTP and FPTP alone  got the majority view legislated for. The votes that went to UKIP weren’t wasted or pointless they moved Cameron. If the Greens become a threat to the Labour Party, Labour will adopt some of their policies and move onto their turf if the Green Party are splitting their vote and allowing the tories through the middle . The Green voters may not get Green MP’s but they can move policy in that direction. 

[Weston Super Saint]

3 hours ago, aintforever said:

I've always voted on issues that are important to me.

I many areas we always have a pretty good idea of how the votes will pan out, you are talking complete shite as usual.

 

If there was adequate opposition and an appealing alternative then there wouldn't be a 'pretty good idea of how the votes will pan out', it's not rocket science is it?

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

That wouldn’t have got us a Brexit vote. The only thing that got us our referenda was the threat of the UKIP vote costing The Tories many Labour/Tory marginals. If we had PR Cameron wouldn’t have needed to promise one. 
 

People keep banging on about votes not counting and policies they like being ignored or wasting their vote, but we have a very clear example of a situation where FPTP and FPTP alone  got the majority view legislated for. The votes that went to UKIP weren’t wasted or pointless they moved Cameron. If the Greens become a threat to the Labour Party, Labour will adopt some of their policies and move onto their turf if the Green Party are splitting their vote and allowing the tories through the middle . The Green voters may not get Green MP’s but they can move policy in that direction. 

I expect Brexit would have happened much sooner if there was PR, why do you think Farage is in favour of it. The frog-faced cunt would have been a much greater threat to the Tories if he was winning swathes of seats in parliament every four years. I expect plenty of Tory voters would have voted UKIP if they didn't think their vote would let Labour or Lib Dem win their seat. The whole red v blue bollocks makes change slower not quicker.

 

[aintforever]

27 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

If there was adequate opposition and an appealing alternative then there wouldn't be a 'pretty good idea of how the votes will pan out', it's not rocket science is it?

Amazingly, people in different areas find different things appealing.

[Lord Duckhunter]

17 minutes ago, aintforever said:

The frog-faced cunt 

Classy.  

[Weston Super Saint]

40 minutes ago, aintforever said:

Amazingly, people in different areas find different things appealing.

Do you think PR would give the same representation of those in Cornwall as it would to those in London / Manchester / Birmingham?

That would be important wouldn't it, given that people in different areas find different things appealing?

[whelk]

 

Another example of alienation of normal voters

from Jess Phillips:

Feel furious watching @ThisisDavina programme about the menopause. Why oh why does no one research the stuff that kills women and messes up our lives. We are never anyone's priority politically, medically, scientifically. Past looking pretty and giving birth we are a burden.

 

[Lighthouse]

Was she the one advocating for a 6pm curfew for men a couple of months back? She seems to have some serious self loathing issues. Most of the women I know lead rich, fulfilling lives; pretty birth-givers or otherwise.

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

 

Another example of alienation of normal voters

from Jess Phillips:

Feel furious watching @ThisisDavina programme about the menopause. Why oh why does no one research the stuff that kills women and messes up our lives. We are never anyone's priority politically, medically, scientifically. Past looking pretty and giving birth we are a burden.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Was she the one advocating for a 6pm curfew for men a couple of months back? She seems to have some serious self loathing issues. Most of the women I know lead rich, fulfilling lives; pretty birth-givers or otherwise.

Not sure how an observation about medical/research/investment priorities in the UK is "self loathing".

I think it's fair to say if men had periods, or went through the menopause the national approach to those things would be quite different.

[Lighthouse]

8 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

 

Not sure how an observation about medical/research/investment priorities in the UK is "self loathing".

I think it's fair to say if men had periods, or went through the menopause the national approach to those things would be quite different.

I was referring mostly to the bit about women being a burden if they are not being pretty or giving birth.

Men may not have periods but we are three times more likely to commit suicide so clearly something about our make is causing hugely increased levels of mental health problems.

[Fan The Flames]

52 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Was she the one advocating for a 6pm curfew for men a couple of months back? She seems to have some serious self loathing issues. Most of the women I know lead rich, fulfilling lives; pretty birth-givers or otherwise.

No that was Baroness Jones of the Green Party.

Edited 12 May, 2021 by Fan The Flames

[Fan The Flames]

It

1 hour ago, whelk said:

 

Another example of alienation of normal voters

from Jess Phillips:

Feel furious watching @ThisisDavina programme about the menopause. Why oh why does no one research the stuff that kills women and messes up our lives. We are never anyone's priority politically, medically, scientifically. Past looking pretty and giving birth we are a burden.

 

It's as if HRT and breast screening doesn't exist.

[CB Fry]

44 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I was referring mostly to the bit about women being a burden if they are not being pretty or giving birth.

Men may not have periods but we are three times more likely to commit suicide so clearly something about our make is causing hugely increased levels of mental health problems.

It's as if Mental Health awareness campaigns, The Samaritans, psychotherapy and medication doesn't exist.

[Lighthouse]

12 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

It's as if Mental Health awareness campaigns, The Samaritans, psychotherapy and medication doesn't exist.

No idea what point you’re making, I’ve never suggested otherwise. Men and women both have their problems and both have some resources available to assist them. The difference is, I’m not claiming the world is biased against men because we haven’t found a cure for baldness or erectile dysfunction yet. As FTF pointed out, women have HRT and that didn’t just fall down from a tree. An awful lot of research goes into that and if there was a ‘cure’ for menopause somebody would be making tens of billions from the 3.5 billion customers worldwide. Even if big pharma don’t care one iota about women’s health, greed alone would have pushed them along.