Do you want to discuss boring politics? (7 Viewers)

clint van damme

Well-Known Member
The country didn’t decisively favour Labour. Only 20% of the electorate voted for them, 34% of total votes cast and less than 10 million put an X against a labour candidate.
17.4 million voted for Brexit which the left wing has never been able to accept,

There was a large section of 'the left wing' who voted leave and a large section, many on here including myself, who voted remain but have said they would not vote for a party calling for a second referendum.

So that's just a generalisation.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
The country didn’t decisively favour Labour. Only 20% of the electorate voted for them, 34% of total votes cast and less than 10 million put an X against a labour candidate.
17.4 million voted for Brexit.
Still the most popular party. How would you feel if a Labour government was beholden to a Green/Lib Dem minority elected by an even smaller % of the electorate.

Or on the flip side, a party you voted for could only form a government with support of a smaller party or two - who you didn’t vote for?

It’s rare for parties to get above 40% in popular vote in general, but particularly so in PR systems. Therefore, coalition governments become the norm rather than majority governments.
 
Last edited:

MalcSB

Well-Known Member
Still the most popular party. How would you feel if a Labour government was beholden to a Green/Lib Dem minority elected by an even smaller % of the electorate.

Or on the flip side, a party you voted for could only form a government with support of a smaller party or two - who you didn’t vote for?

It’s rare for parties to get above 40% in popular vote in general, but particularly so in PR systems. Therefore, coalition governments become the norm rather than majority governments.
Might be better, might be worse. FPTP seems to allow disproportionate majorities and yo-yoing from one philosophy to another rather than perhaps enabling some continuity.
 

Mucca Mad Boys

Well-Known Member
Might be better, might be worse. FPTP seems to allow disproportionate majorities and yo-yoing from one philosophy to another rather than perhaps enabling some continuity.
Decisive majorities, in my personal opinion, is better. That’s just one school of thought, on the continent, the prevailing belief is that politics by consensus is inherently more desirable.

Like most things in politics, left or right, FPTP or PR, there is no definitive correct answer. Different things work for different countries and their political systems/traditions.

I’ll reiterate the point that, whilst I didn’t vote for a Labour government, it is desirable that they can carry out their ‘mandate’ (however weak or strong) without barrier. In a PR environment, I genuinely believe Brexit would’ve deadlocked the country more and risked a lot more of a toxic political environment and culture. As it happens, the 2019 GE delivered Brexit definitively - even if I personally didn’t agree with it in 2016. In my view, this shows how dynamic our constitutional settlement is.

Of course this is just one school of thought.
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member

PVA

Well-Known Member
Starmer has just announced some new money to spend on weapons, never a "tough decision" to be made in this area

I haven't seen what that entails or how much money, and I appreciate there are plenty of other pressing concerns, but it's clearly important. Like everything else the Tories have utterly hollowed out the armed forces and left it in a dire state:


 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I haven't seen what that entails or how much money, and I appreciate there are plenty of other pressing concerns, but it's clearly important. Like everything else the Tories have utterly hollowed out the armed forces and left it in a dire state:




We are one of the few countries who meet NATO defence spending commitments
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Yes and like everything else the Tories have obviously totally mismanaged that money and left something to ruin, so now it needs fixing.

So we need more armed forces personnel? Why? Are we going to war?
 

CCFCSteve

Well-Known Member
Tbf we already spend more on our military than our NATO commitment obliges.

..and more than a lot of our NATO colleagues and have been for a significant period of time. Been saying for ages western European countries need to pull their collective fingers out and quick

The MoD has also unfortunately wasted billions upon billions.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
'Shall we bother with pandemic planning? Why? Is there going to be a pandemic?'

So how does our number of armed forces compare to the rest of Europe? Our general standing is rather high isn’t it? I’m amazed you think defence spending is a big issue. Then again as you’ve seen an article on X why am I surprised

 

NorthernWisdom

Well-Known Member
..and more than a lot of our NATO colleagues and have been for a significant period of time. Been saying for ages western European countries need to pull their collective fingers out and quick
Yup. Starmer's committed increase is also relatively small, and smacks of something you can stick in the last budget before the election to say you've made it!
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
So how does our number of armed forces compare to the rest of Europe? Our general standing is rather high isn’t it? I’m amazed you think defence spending is a big issue. Then again as you’ve seen an article on X why am I surprised


And it's quite amusing you dismiss something from the recently retired Chief of the army yet take Best Diplomats as gospel.

I'm sure they've got a much better grasp of the state of the British armed forces than the bloke who was *checks notes* oh, in charge of the British armed forces.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
I never said anything about number of armed forces.

And it's quite amusing you dismiss something from the recently retired Chief of the army yet take Best Diplomats as gospel.

I'm sure they've got a much better grasp of the state of the British armed forces than the bloke who was *checks notes* oh, in charge of the British armed forces.

Well clearly someone in the armed forces will see an opportunity with a new government to increase spending.

Even NW is someone sceptical - sometimes rather than have vibes you have to perhaps think more and dig a bit deeper before posting?
 

PVA

Well-Known Member

30 Rock Fellow Kids GIF by Peacock
 

fernandopartridge

Well-Known Member
And it's quite amusing you dismiss something from the recently retired Chief of the army yet take Best Diplomats as gospel.

I'm sure they've got a much better grasp of the state of the British armed forces than the bloke who was *checks notes* oh, in charge of the British armed forces.
Yes somebody who is high up in the army is not at all conflicted in this matter
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Yes somebody who is high up in the army is not at all conflicted in this matter

Ok well how about someone who carried out an independent assessment of the state of the armed forces for the government?

The findings were presented by Dr Rob Johnson, who led a government unit to measure the country’s readiness for war.

He said that the UK military was operating with a “bare minimum” that only just allowed it to mount peacekeeping and humanitarian relief operations, civilian evacuation from warzones, and some anti-sabotage activities.

Johnson told the Financial Times: “In any larger-scale operation, we would run out of ammunition rapidly. Our defences are too thin and we are not prepared to fight and win an armed conflict of any scale.

“The UK has reached a situation where it cannot defend the British homelands properly.”
 

PVA

Well-Known Member
Hang on a minute. I've just had a look at what has actually been said or proposed.

This new money he's found that you're upset about is a 0.2% increase to happen at some point in the future. That's it?

He really hasn't got a chance with some people!
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top