RugbyRebels

The point of discussion is a little obtuse, to be fair to those of us not initiate to the sour test of social media.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 7:51 pm

Stooo V2 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 9:04 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Sep 25, 2022 8:44 pm
And the point you're making is?

It's a discussion forum mate. For discussing things. Specifically politics in this area.

This thread is for specifically discussing the documentary that aired.

No worries, until today in my browser your posts didn't have any links to the video, so it was impossible to see what you were talking about. Happy to discuss politics.

No problems my dude. The links are interesting/alarming.

Apparently there was supposed to be a,part 3 last night but it wasn't shown for some reason.

Interestingly, its got coverage in a number of middle eastern media sites but next to nothing in mainstream UK press. Could be full on conspiracy theory time or just prudent fact checking on the UK side.

If anyone has seen Panorama and felt that a bit one sided then I would suggest the Forde Inquiry Report which is very balanced.

Watched the first few minutes and damn! What happened to Al Jazeera? They were literally the example of God journalism when I was at university, but that… that was a hatchet job with very little to do with any facts.

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:07 pm Watched the first few minutes and damn! What happened to Al Jazeera? They were literally the example of God journalism when I was at university, but that… that was a hatchet job with very little to do with any facts.

Its like the anti-panorama and I can see why much of the UK press is steering clear until facts are identified.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:31 pm

Stom wrote: ↑Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:07 pm Watched the first few minutes and damn! What happened to Al Jazeera? They were literally the example of God journalism when I was at university, but that… that was a hatchet job with very little to do with any facts.

Its like the anti-panorama and I can see why much of the UK press is steering clear until facts are identified.

I can imagine the research has been done behind it, but I guarantee this has been paid for. This is a hatchet job, full stop. Some of the wording is just incredible.

Reading the hatchet job comments made me curious and just having a look now. It's funny how closely that language mirrors what they're actually saying in the documentary about 15 minutes in.

It's very hard to shake the actual substance free from the absurd editing and reality TV style production in the opening. I'd be more surprised if any major political party wasn't full of cunts, to be honest, but it feels impossible to trace any of these allegations back to much more than hearsay, or one person's word against another. I can see why people are so divided on this. At least one side is doing a very good job of muddying the waters.

The whistleblower has used this as a vehicle to launch her music career. One of the tracks on her new album is "Fuck Keef". Make of that what you will, but I'd guess she's far from unbiased.

It explains why UK media aren't touching it with a barge pole. As you say Mike there are cnuts on both sides of this one; I'm fairly sure there will be plenty of interesting emails from Corbyn supporters if anyone wanted to highlight them. But there is an independent report on the whole situation that makes for more balanced reading.

The only way to rid our politics of factionalism, and that is ultimately what this is about, is to adopt proportional representation. It is the only way. Until that day, our politics will remain like a playground and our country's prospects will be hamstrung.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:03 pm The only way to rid our politics of factionalism, and that is ultimately what this is about, is to adopt proportional representation. It is the only way. Until that day, our politics will remain like a playground and our country's prospects will be hamstrung.

Will it? This is about control of a political party. I don’t think the me to do of electing MPs would make a difference.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:59 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:03 pm The only way to rid our politics of factionalism, and that is ultimately what this is about, is to adopt proportional representation. It is the only way. Until that day, our politics will remain like a playground and our country's prospects will be hamstrung.

Will it? This is about control of a political party. I don’t think the me to do of electing MPs would make a difference.

If I compare to Netherlands like I often do, the left faction of Labour and centre factions would never coexist in the same party. There would be no need. They would exist as completely separate entities, and would only come together in the form of a coalition, whereby the relative political power of each faction would be clearly determined by the number of seats held. This would reduce the amount of shenanigans. Because let's be honest, that's what all this is about. Shenanigans within the party so that one faction dominates over the other.

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:58 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:59 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2022 6:03 pm The only way to rid our politics of factionalism, and that is ultimately what this is about, is to adopt proportional representation. It is the only way. Until that day, our politics will remain like a playground and our country's prospects will be hamstrung.

Will it? This is about control of a political party. I don’t think the me to do of electing MPs would make a difference.

If I compare to Netherlands like I often do, the left faction of Labour and centre factions would never coexist in the same party. There would be no need. They would exist as completely separate entities, and would only come together in the form of a coalition, whereby the relative political power of each faction would be clearly determined by the number of seats held. This would reduce the amount of shinanigans. Because let's be honest, that's what all this is about. Shinanigans within the party so that one faction dominates over the other.

OK, I see where you are coming from. Possibly that would happen although it would be a bumpy ride as various Labour and conservative factions would need to work out who had the right to be called the Labour Party and Conservative party after such a measure was brought in. Maybe I’m just a bit too cynical about politics but at best I think it would be a change seen over a generation (barring the extremists in both sides who are more
Likely to split away anyway) as there would be safety (and money) in staying with the traditional parties.

I suppose the difference is that the shenanigans predominantly come within the party in fptp but predominantly within govt for pr.
Iirc, the Dutch govt took 10ish months after the election to form whilst it’s 18ish months for Belgium. Obvs, they are different countries with their different challenges but…

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:52 am I suppose the difference is that the shenanigans predominantly come within the party in fptp but predominantly within govt for pr.
Iirc, the Dutch govt took 10ish months after the election to form whilst it’s 18ish months for Belgium. Obvs, they are different countries with their different challenges but…

It comes back out to democratic control again though. If shenanigans are within a party, I can't affect that. I have no power whether Labour or Conservatives adopt this policy or that - I just get given the manifesto based on whichever faction has achieved dominance in the broad church of late and have to make a mostly binary choice between them and the other lot. If Labour splinter into 2 or 3 parties (like they're *desperate* to do anyway), the choice of who achieves dominance within the putative alliance is based on how many votes they got from the general populace, not how many internal mechanisms/parliamentary MPs/unions/members they have corralled or coerced.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:18 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:52 am I suppose the difference is that the shenanigans predominantly come within the party in fptp but predominantly within govt for pr.
Iirc, the Dutch govt took 10ish months after the election to form whilst it’s 18ish months for Belgium. Obvs, they are different countries with their different challenges but…

It comes back out to democratic control again though. If shenanigans are within a party, I can't affect that. I have no power whether Labour or Conservatives adopt this policy or that - I just get given the manifesto based on whichever faction has achieved dominance in the broad church of late and have to make a mostly binary choice between them and the other lot. If Labour splinter into 2 or 3 parties (like they're *desperate* to do anyway), the choice of who achieves dominance within the putative alliance is based on how many votes they got from the general populace, not how many internal mechanisms/parliamentary MPs/unions/members they have corralled or coerced.

Puja

But then negotiations by parties are made after you’ve voted on their manifesto. There’s always compromises and a loss of democratic control in every system, unless pr produces one party with a majority, it just depends where in the system the general public lose control. If your main motivation for voting Lib Dem in 2010 was university fees and maintaining the top rate of tax at 50p then you really would question what democratic control coalition governments give you. Plus, as stated, months without a functioning govt. Choose your poison.

There’s also the point that you can become a member of a party - it ain’t much money.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:30 am

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:18 am

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:52 am I suppose the difference is that the shenanigans predominantly come within the party in fptp but predominantly within govt for pr.
Iirc, the Dutch govt took 10ish months after the election to form whilst it’s 18ish months for Belgium. Obvs, they are different countries with their different challenges but…

It comes back out to democratic control again though. If shenanigans are within a party, I can't affect that. I have no power whether Labour or Conservatives adopt this policy or that - I just get given the manifesto based on whichever faction has achieved dominance in the broad church of late and have to make a mostly binary choice between them and the other lot. If Labour splinter into 2 or 3 parties (like they're *desperate* to do anyway), the choice of who achieves dominance within the putative alliance is based on how many votes they got from the general populace, not how many internal mechanisms/parliamentary MPs/unions/members they have corralled or coerced.

Puja

But then negotiations by parties are made after you’ve voted on their manifesto. There’s always compromises and a loss of democratic control in every system, unless pr produces one party with a majority, it just depends where in the system the general public lose control. If your main motivation for voting Lib Dem in 2010 was university fees and maintaining the top rate of tax at 50p then you really would question what democratic control coalition governments give you. Plus, as stated, months without a functioning govt. Choose your poison.

But at least then you're voting for what a party stands for, rather than against what someone else stands for and what's actually "The Will Of The People (TM)" becomes clearer rather than, "What the people ended up voting for because they didn't have other useful options."

Taking your example of 2010, how many of the people voting Lib Dem did so because of university fees and maintaining the top rate of tax, and how many actually wanted to vote Labour or Green, but didn't because it was a wasted vote where they lived? Who knows whether university fees was actually a priority of the majority of Lib Dem voters or whether their collapse in 2015 was because of anti-Tory voters who "lent them a vote" in 2010? It's guesswork until people can vote for what they want, not what they're resigned to voting for because anything else is a waste.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 1:13 pm

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:30 am

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 11:18 am

It comes back out to democratic control again though. If shenanigans are within a party, I can't affect that. I have no power whether Labour or Conservatives adopt this policy or that - I just get given the manifesto based on whichever faction has achieved dominance in the broad church of late and have to make a mostly binary choice between them and the other lot. If Labour splinter into 2 or 3 parties (like they're *desperate* to do anyway), the choice of who achieves dominance within the putative alliance is based on how many votes they got from the general populace, not how many internal mechanisms/parliamentary MPs/unions/members they have corralled or coerced.

Puja

But then negotiations by parties are made after you’ve voted on their manifesto. There’s always compromises and a loss of democratic control in every system, unless pr produces one party with a majority, it just depends where in the system the general public lose control. If your main motivation for voting Lib Dem in 2010 was university fees and maintaining the top rate of tax at 50p then you really would question what democratic control coalition governments give you. Plus, as stated, months without a functioning govt. Choose your poison.

But at least then you're voting for what a party stands for, rather than against what someone else stands for and what's actually "The Will Of The People (TM)" becomes clearer rather than, "What the people ended up voting for because they didn't have other useful options."

Taking your example of 2010, how many of the people voting Lib Dem did so because of university fees and maintaining the top rate of tax, and how many actually wanted to vote Labour or Green, but didn't because it was a wasted vote where they lived? Who knows whether university fees was actually a priority of the majority of Lib Dem voters or whether their collapse in 2015 was because of anti-Tory voters who "lent them a vote" in 2010? It's guesswork until people can vote for what they want, not what they're resigned to voting for because anything else is a waste.

Puja

We’ll never know but their voters certainly weren’t happy given the backlash against so I’d suggest they didn’t get democratic control. We’ve done this to death, for me anyway, and, as before, aren’t actually that far apart and would both have a mixture. Again, it’s a case of pick your poison as both have their pros and cons.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:06 am

Zhivago wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 8:58 am

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 7:59 am

Will it? This is about control of a political party. I don’t think the me to do of electing MPs would make a difference.

If I compare to Netherlands like I often do, the left faction of Labour and centre factions would never coexist in the same party. There would be no need. They would exist as completely separate entities, and would only come together in the form of a coalition, whereby the relative political power of each faction would be clearly determined by the number of seats held. This would reduce the amount of shinanigans. Because let's be honest, that's what all this is about. Shinanigans within the party so that one faction dominates over the other.

OK, I see where you are coming from. Possibly that would happen although it would be a bumpy ride as various Labour and conservative factions would need to work out who had the right to be called the Labour Party and Conservative party after such a measure was brought in. Maybe I’m just a bit too cynical about politics but at best I think it would be a change seen over a generation (barring the extremists in both sides who are more
Likely to split away anyway) as there would be safety (and money) in staying with the traditional parties.

Ironically in both major parties the right wing is in charge and in each case this means the wing least well described by the party name.

In general, for me, PR is clearly superior to FPTP, due to the huge number of wasted votes, the massive skewing of the result vs the vote, the majorities won with minority vote etc. Of course the biggest beneficiaries of the system, the Tories and the SNP would never change it, and Labour becomes less interested the closer it is to power.

I hope Starmer realises that whatever polling advantage Labour may enjoy in the short or medium term may vanish once the Tories have had a year or two to clean their image with the help of a smoother leader (Mordaunt for example). The truth is that in the long term FPTP gives us a lot more Tory than Labour governments, so (for the sake of Labour) he should bring PR in while he is able to.

I do think some version of AV is best. Pure PR does not work, imo. I agree with Mells that struggling to form a government after almost two years is pretty bad.

I think the rules around lobbying are more important, though. They need to be looked at.

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:10 pm I do think some version of AV is best. Pure PR does not work, imo. I agree with Mells that struggling to form a government after almost two years is pretty bad.

I think the rules around lobbying are more important, though. They need to be looked at.

Lobbying and political contributions are a major issue. It cuts both ways in fairness. I’m starting to think that giving political parties state money is the way forward, because frankly the current system is a swamp.

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 8:02 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:10 pm I do think some version of AV is best. Pure PR does not work, imo. I agree with Mells that struggling to form a government after almost two years is pretty bad.

I think the rules around lobbying are more important, though. They need to be looked at.

Lobbying and political contributions are a major issue. It cuts both ways in fairness. I’m starting to think that giving political parties state money is the way forward, because frankly the current system is a swamp.

Agreed, state fund the parties, ban lobbying. I would also ban second jobs unless they are severely limited in time dedicated to them and no income is received.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 12:09 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Mon Oct 10, 2022 8:02 am

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:10 pm I do think some version of AV is best. Pure PR does not work, imo. I agree with Mells that struggling to form a government after almost two years is pretty bad.

I think the rules around lobbying are more important, though. They need to be looked at.

Lobbying and political contributions are a major issue. It cuts both ways in fairness. I’m starting to think that giving political parties state money is the way forward, because frankly the current system is a swamp.

Agreed, state fund the parties, ban lobbying. I would also ban second jobs unless they are severely limited in time dedicated to them and no income is received.

Raise their pay as well.

Stom wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:10 pm I do think some version of AV is best. Pure PR does not work, imo. I agree with Mells that struggling to form a government after almost two years is pretty bad.

I think the rules around lobbying are more important, though. They need to be looked at.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/vot ... ng-system/

AV is worse than FPTP. That's why it was presented as an option in the referendum a few years back. So they could claim the public didn't want a new voting system.

What is 'Pure PR' btw? Lol

STV is the best option if people want to compromise a bit on the proportionality in order to get more local representation.

But if you want new parties to be viable then you need PR