Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Nobody is expecting big changes which is why they are already disappointed. Except for shmmeee and PVA of course
Nobody is expecting big changes which is why they are already disappointed. Except for shmmeee and PVA of courseLikewise with Welsh Labour too. Which is my logic when I say anyone expecting big changes from an incoming Labour government will be disappointed by the next election.
Totally agree that the Tories absolutely deserve to kicked out of government, the alternative just isn’t going to be much better in my view.
Nobody is expecting big changes which is why they are already disappointed. Except for shmmeee and PVA of course
BookmarkedI'm not expecting any particular individual seismic changes, but I'm expecting improvements on virtually every metric which combined will make a big difference and make everyone's lives better than under a Tory government.
It's almost like people want Labour to fail just because of Starmer.Bookmarked
Bookmarked
It’ll be pretty much a continuation of the same state of affairs but with less dodgy deals going on.You don't think things will improve under Tory-lite?
#improvingmetricsI'm not expecting any particular individual seismic changes, but I'm expecting improvements on virtually every metric which combined will make a big difference and make everyone's lives better than under a Tory government.
It's almost like people want Labour to fail just because of Starmer.
#improvingmetrics
Blessed be the people
It's like when some people seem to want City to lose so they can moan about Robins/King/Kasey Palmer.
Some people have spent so long bashing Starmer that they have to hope he fails just to save face.
The global banking industry crashed the economy. As for controls have you missed the right-wing that basically want to remove all regulation from that particular industry for 'growth'? In fact it's what a lot of Tories voted for Brexit for.Cant forget Labour crashing the economy and trying to blame everyone else for their failure, by not putting in controls on the economy.
And then the huge gaping whole in the UK finances that was formed by the complete failure to actually do anything about it.
The violent deaths of over 150,000 civilians in and around Iraq.
How can you possibly support this sack of shit, Shmmeee?
One could argue your faith in Labour is extreme as any religious fundamentalist.
Starmer would have got annihilated by Johnson.Maybe yes, Corbyn is to left wing for middle England and the so called red wall, blue Labour
Yeah, and it's do-able with both parents grafting for it living a very modest life otherwise.
Using the 60k example, guessing it's take home of about £3.8k a month.
Mortgage is £680, School about £1325. Leaves about £1.8k for other bills / living.
With a bursary then the school cost would go down. A lower than average mortgage then again it goes down.
Like I said, not everybody who chooses it is "rich" or "from money". There are a lot of normal people who just graft and go without themselves.
Starmer would have got annihilated by Johnson.
Using the 60k example, guessing it's take home of about £3.8k a month.
Mortgage is £680, School about £1325. Leaves about £1.8k for other bills / living.
With a bursary then the school cost would go down. A lower than average mortgage then again it goes down.
Like I said, not everybody who chooses it is "rich" or "from money". There are a lot of normal people who just graft and go without themselves.
The only reason I like FPTP is because we have constituencies and so you are voting for an actual individual to represent you. That should be the person who gets the most votes, so I don't like things like STV for that. I agree that coalitions can lead to stalemate and not a lot being done, but at the same time I don't like the idea of a party getting the votes of around 25% of the population having the ability to pass whatever laws it feels like due to a huge majority.My preference for FPTP is more technical.
Bearing in mind the rarity that a party will reach 51% of the popular vote, coalition governments become the norm. Which, imo, isn’t what the electorate votes for (in most cases). Let’s use this election to make a hypothetical example:
Labour is currently polling at 45-46% so would need either the Lib Dems or Greens to form a coalition. Why should a junior party have the power to force through policies the electorate didn’t give a mandate for?
Continuing with the this election as an example, I believe the party with the most votes should form the government. Labour polling on 45%, hypothetically could be thwarted by a coalition of the other parties. This happened in Spain this year where a centre-right party ‘won’ the election but the centre-left party formed the government. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders ‘won’ the election but will not be the next PM.
PR systems tend to be more fragmented to parties rarely poll above 40% so tend to need ‘rainbow coalitions’ (multiple parties) and governments can be brought down by these junior parties.
Take Brexit for example, at 52:48, if we had a PR electoral system, we wouldn’t have had a decisive conclusion to that issue. FPTP delivered a government with a large majority to push through their agenda, likewise with this upcoming election where Labour. The term ‘elective dictatorship’ is apt and actually, a perk of our system.
As for 16-17 year old votes, there’s a reason most countries only enfranchise them for local/municipal elections rather than national elections.
Nobody is expecting big changes which is why they are already disappointed. Except for shmmeee and PVA of course
The only reason I like FPTP is because we have constituencies and so you are voting for an actual individual to represent you. That should be the person who gets the most votes, so I don't like things like STV for that. I agree that coalitions can lead to stalemate and not a lot being done, but at the same time I don't like the idea of a party getting the votes of around 25% of the population having the ability to pass whatever laws it feels like due to a huge majority.
However, that does lead to a result that is not representative of the vote at a national scale and is unfair. Hence why I think the single vote should be used to elect two houses - the first on FPTP so we have local representatives and the second on PV to reflect the overall trend.
Interesting idea, presumably sack the House of Lords?The only reason I like FPTP is because we have constituencies and so you are voting for an actual individual to represent you. That should be the person who gets the most votes, so I don't like things like STV for that. I agree that coalitions can lead to stalemate and not a lot being done, but at the same time I don't like the idea of a party getting the votes of around 25% of the population having the ability to pass whatever laws it feels like due to a huge majority.
However, that does lead to a result that is not representative of the vote at a national scale and is unfair. Hence why I think the single vote should be used to elect two houses - the first on FPTP so we have local representatives and the second on PV to reflect the overall trend.
The global banking industry crashed the economy. As for controls have you missed the right-wing that basically want to remove all regulation from that particular industry for 'growth'? In fact it's what a lot of Tories voted for Brexit for.
And crashing the economy, did you miss the huge fuck-up made by Tory Liz Truss little more than a year ago? And that was entirely down to the government.
And the Labour party is exactly the same one as voted to go to war in Iraq.
Failures subjective.
What you consider to be success, which is small improvements, (and you're quite within your rights to do so), I'd consider a failure given how far the country's deteriorated.
I'd be happy if he brought about the level of improvement I considered successful, but nothing he or his shadow cabinet have said indicates he'll do it.
Well, the Labour Party certainly aren’t .For someone who mentions logical thinking and honesty so often in his posts you're not displaying much of either regarding this issue.
You don't think things will improve under Labour?
|
| Matthew 18.1-4 'Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” ’ |
|
|
On your revised argument, should 16 year olds be able to marry without parental permission, drive a car or a lorry, be regarded as an adult if arrested for a crime. Should child benefit and child maintenance stop at 16 as they are not children?
If it“s a question of maturity, then go the whole hog. It isn’t, it’s gerrymandering. If the majority of 16 year olds belonged to a right wing organisation - let’s say a Farage Youth - Labour would not be including this in their manifesto.
Just to be clear, however shit Truss was…and she was shit…she didn’t ‘crash the economy’ SBD. She caused a spike in borrowing costs for a relatively short period of time. Sunak/Hunt, whilst hardly the most inspiring of combos, did settle this down
About the first thing I've agreed with you onThat said, the Lords needs reforming. There’s no need to have 800+ members. If we wanted some form of PR, I don’t mind the idea of a ‘representative’ appointed chamber i.e. ‘x’ party gets ‘y’ % of the vote and gets ‘z’ seats to allocate. That way you get a form of PR but the Lords remains subordinate to the House of Commons.
It wasn't a short period of time. Look at the level of interest rates. People pay a hell of a lot more on a monthly basis and many more lost their homes because of Truss and her fucked up policies.Just to be clear, however shit Truss was…and she was shit…she didn’t ‘crash the economy’ SBD. She caused a spike in borrowing costs for a relatively short period of time. Sunak/Hunt, whilst hardly the most inspiring of combos, did settle this down
About the first thing I've agreed with you on
Of Course I’m not proposing that the unmarried or those how can’t drive shouldn’t be allowed to vote.On your revised argument, now that we've shot down your rationality and frontline service point of contention, are you now proposing that people who are unmarried or who don't drive shouldn't be able to vote?
You keep scratching around to find different reasons of why we shouldn't allow 16-18 year olds to vote, but ultimately you're only really concerned because they may not vote the way you want. Everything else, politely, is just noise.
A small aside: Gerrymandering, as I understand it, really relates to the redrawing of electoral boundaries rather than the enfranchisement of a specific cohort. It's interesting to note that both the recent redrawing of constituencies and the requirement for voter ID favour the Conservatives. Hmm.
I don’t understand the opposition to a coalition government. The last time we had anything near to resembling a functioning government it was a coalition. Regardless of what you thought about the politics the one thing that they did do was get on with the business of Government without the distraction of in fighting. Ironically there was also less factions in the coalition government than there is in the current one party government.
Besides a blend of the current Labour and Green or Lib Dem for that matter manifesto don’t sound that bad. It would force Labour to be more radical.
Well, the Labour Party certainly aren’t .
Of Course I’m not proposing that the unmarried or those how can’t drive shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
And of course you are not giving an answer to the questions I asked - should 16 year olds be able to marry without parental permission, drive a car or a lorry, be regarded as an adult if arrested for a crime. Should child benefit and child maintenance stop at 16 as they are not children?
Not this issue. I just don’t think 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough or have enough experience of life to be given the vote. As I have said elsewhere, if they are mature enough then make the age of majority 16 and be done with it. That would include sending 16 year olds to be killed on the front line of any future armed conflict. (For avoidance of doubt, that is not what I am advocating).So it's just about partisan politics for you then clearly.
Fair enough.
Yes. PR chamber replaces it.Interesting idea, presumably sack the House of Lords?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?