RugbyRebels

Clearly a desperate bid to get everyone over 40 to vote Conservative

"Show all the workshy wokesters how it was in our day" for all the fantasits who think ww2 happened in the 80s

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 1:37 amI am enjoying the concept of mandatory volunteer work. The Tories put the moron into oxymoron.

I believe there's a word for mandatory, unpaid work.
Britain built an empire on it! (no, not coal, steam or steal).

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 10:33 am Clearly a desperate bid to get everyone over 40 to vote Conservative

"Show all the workshy wokesters how it was in our day" for all the fantasits who think ww2 happened in the 80s

This is the bit I find genuinely confusing. Most of the WWII generation have passed away now. So most of those who are talking about the need for national service to ‘sort out the youth of today’ are baby boomers who never faced national service and enjoyed a peaceful life on the whole with a lot of progress to make life more bearable. Those same people who were opposing ‘the man’ in the 1960s are now wanting to see the conscription of their grand children.

Labour's treatment of Diane Abbott is disgraceful. Whip removed after an ill-advised but brief and vague letter which was certainly not 'antisemitic' as Starmer claimed. The investigation was completed 5 months ago but the whip returned only now. And still Labour are not clear about whether she can defend her seat in the election, giving her as little time as possible to prepare to stand as an independent (if that's something she would consider), and allowing them to blame her if she walks away from the Labour party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... s-possible

I hope she does stand as an independent when Labour inevitably choose someone else as their candidate, but that's obviously a tough choice for her to make.

Labour running Israel 1st candidates but barring some for liking a john Stewart tweet (who's Jewish)

Starmer.............

Hope Abbott runs as an independent and wins

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 10:28 am Labour's treatment of Diane Abbott is disgraceful. Whip removed after an ill-advised but brief and vague letter which was certainly not 'antisemitic' as Starmer claimed. The investigation was completed 5 months ago but the whip returned only now. And still Labour are not clear about whether she can defend her seat in the election, giving her as little time as possible to prepare to stand as an independent (if that's something she would consider), and allowing them to blame her if she walks away from the Labour party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... s-possible

I hope she does stand as an independent when Labour inevitably choose someone else as their candidate, but that's obviously a tough choice for her to make.

not exactly a good look for Faiza Shaheen either (see above re John Stewart tweet). Saw her on Newsnight last night, ruthless stuff.

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 11:18 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 10:28 am Labour's treatment of Diane Abbott is disgraceful. Whip removed after an ill-advised but brief and vague letter which was certainly not 'antisemitic' as Starmer claimed. The investigation was completed 5 months ago but the whip returned only now. And still Labour are not clear about whether she can defend her seat in the election, giving her as little time as possible to prepare to stand as an independent (if that's something she would consider), and allowing them to blame her if she walks away from the Labour party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... s-possible

I hope she does stand as an independent when Labour inevitably choose someone else as their candidate, but that's obviously a tough choice for her to make.

not exactly a good look for Faiza Shaheen either (see above re John Stewart tweet). Saw her on Newsnight last night, ruthless stuff.

Agreed.

They're purging the party and won't be happy till it's 100% Blairite (or Starmerite, or Tory-lite, whatever).

This is my fear. Labour will end Tory austerity, but only by renaming it Labour austerity, because they won't make any significant changes.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... s-election

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 10:33 am Clearly a desperate bid to get everyone over 40 to vote Conservative

"Show all the workshy wokesters how it was in our day" for all the fantasits who think ww2 happened in the 80s

I mean, the Tories are cutting the armed services aren't they?

So, by some miracle pulled from the literal ass of god, and the Tories somehow win. Kids are conscripted while troop numbers are being cut. Who trains them?

Of course it's a desperation ploy by a bunch of bent pieces of shit who don't know what the fuck they're doing as they lurch and stumble around, from one self-inflicted crisis to another.

cashead wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:58 pm

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 10:33 am Clearly a desperate bid to get everyone over 40 to vote Conservative

"Show all the workshy wokesters how it was in our day" for all the fantasits who think ww2 happened in the 80s

I mean, the Tories are cutting the armed services aren't they?

So, by some miracle pulled from the literal ass of god, and the Tories somehow win. Kids are conscripted while troop numbers are being cut. Who trains them?

Of course it's a desperation ploy by a bunch of bent pieces of shit who don't know what the fuck they're doing as they lurch and stumble around, from one self-inflicted crisis to another.

It's actually Lib Dem tactics - name a pie-in-the-sky policy that appeals to your base and don't worry about how it would be paid for or organised because you know there's no chance in hell of winning power.

Mind, Labour are copying the election playbook of 2017/9 Tories by declaring that their opposition is planning an "£X BILLION UNFUNDED SPENDING SPREE" that is worked out by costing up everything that anyone on that side has ever mentioned even once as a vague ambition and pretending it's a committed spending promise, so I guess it's musical chairs. Maybe we could get the Lib Dems to support a vaguely socialist policy so we've got the full circle?

Puja

I'm not comparing it to Iraq. Iraq was somewhat absurd and cost a lot of resource. Completely unjustifiably, as it turn out. Compulsory service for a year will spunk even more money 'cos they aint gonna stay.

cashead wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 7:58 pm

paddy no 11 wrote: ↑Wed May 29, 2024 10:33 am Clearly a desperate bid to get everyone over 40 to vote Conservative

"Show all the workshy wokesters how it was in our day" for all the fantasits who think ww2 happened in the 80s

I mean, the Tories are cutting the armed services aren't they?

So, by some miracle pulled from the literal ass of god, and the Tories somehow win. Kids are conscripted while troop numbers are being cut. Who trains them?

Of course it's a desperation ploy by a bunch of bent pieces of shit who don't know what the fuck they're doing as they lurch and stumble around, from one self-inflicted crisis to another.

They have already cut the military substantially. But yes this is just a gimic aimed to energise their base.

New poll

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_home.html

CON ..... 23.3% ...... 66
LAB ..... 44.7% ..... 485
LIB ....... 9.2% ...... 59
Ref ...... 11.8% ....... 0
Grn ....... 5.8% ....... 2
SNP ....... 3.3% ...... 17
Plaid ...... 0.7% ....... 3


Shows, once again, how ridiculous FPTP electoral system is. Much as I hate them, if Reform have roughly 12% of the votes, they should have roughly 12% of the seats.
Equally, the Lib Dems, based on this poll, would go from 11.8% vote share to 9.2%, whilst going from 8 seats to 59.

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 11:47 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 11:18 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 10:28 am Labour's treatment of Diane Abbott is disgraceful. Whip removed after an ill-advised but brief and vague letter which was certainly not 'antisemitic' as Starmer claimed. The investigation was completed 5 months ago but the whip returned only now. And still Labour are not clear about whether she can defend her seat in the election, giving her as little time as possible to prepare to stand as an independent (if that's something she would consider), and allowing them to blame her if she walks away from the Labour party.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ar ... s-possible

I hope she does stand as an independent when Labour inevitably choose someone else as their candidate, but that's obviously a tough choice for her to make.

not exactly a good look for Faiza Shaheen either (see above re John Stewart tweet). Saw her on Newsnight last night, ruthless stuff.

Agreed.

They're purging the party and won't be happy till it's 100% Blairite (or Starmerite, or Tory-lite, whatever).

Good. I mean, the Tory-lite jibe is, erm, misleading. But otherwise, having a Labour party that isn't full of dipshits like JC and the rest is probably a very good thing.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 10:39 am

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 11:47 am

Banquo wrote: ↑Thu May 30, 2024 11:18 am

not exactly a good look for Faiza Shaheen either (see above re John Stewart tweet). Saw her on Newsnight last night, ruthless stuff.

Agreed.

They're purging the party and won't be happy till it's 100% Blairite (or Starmerite, or Tory-lite, whatever).

Good. I mean, the Tory-lite jibe is, erm, misleading. But otherwise, having a Labour party that isn't full of dipshits like JC and the rest is probably a very good thing.

Totally agree. Starmer wants MPs he can rely on and not to be beholden to a leftish clique.

I also seem to recall that momentum was trying very hard to deselect Labour MPs who weren’t thorough disciples of Corbyn. Bit rich to moan when you get the same treatment.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:08 am New poll

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_home.html

CON ..... 23.3% ...... 66
LAB ..... 44.7% ..... 485
LIB ....... 9.2% ...... 59
Ref ...... 11.8% ....... 0
Grn ....... 5.8% ....... 2
SNP ....... 3.3% ...... 17
Plaid ...... 0.7% ....... 3


Shows, once again, how ridiculous FPTP electoral system is. Much as I hate them, if Reform have roughly 12% of the votes, they should have roughly 12% of the seats.
Equally, the Lib Dems, based on this poll, would go from 11.8% vote share to 9.2%, whilst going from 8 seats to 59.

Although, playing devils advocate here, this is the danger of projecting local votes onto a national canvass. The Lib Dem’s will pick up seats in areas wheee they are traditionally strong. So they will win the greatest number of votes in those areas. Anti Tory vote elsewhere might support Labour as the best placed to oust a Tory. So potentially the lines are bucking the first
Past the post system by being able to have a geographical hard core of seats where they are the prime challengers, whilst also suffering lost votes elsewhere where they are seen as a wasted vote.

Reform
Don’t have a stronghold region so their votes gets spread out more hence minimal seats. There is a logic there but I agree that a vote
Should never been seen to be wasted.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:08 am New poll

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_home.html

CON ..... 23.3% ...... 66
LAB ..... 44.7% ..... 485
LIB ....... 9.2% ...... 59
Ref ...... 11.8% ....... 0
Grn ....... 5.8% ....... 2
SNP ....... 3.3% ...... 17
Plaid ...... 0.7% ....... 3


Shows, once again, how ridiculous FPTP electoral system is. Much as I hate them, if Reform have roughly 12% of the votes, they should have roughly 12% of the seats.
Equally, the Lib Dems, based on this poll, would go from 11.8% vote share to 9.2%, whilst going from 8 seats to 59.

And another
https://sotn.newstatesman.com/2024/05/britainpredicts

CON ..... 23.0% .... 124
LAB ..... 45.2% ..... 417
LIB ....... 9.3% ...... 56
Ref ...... 11.5% ....... 0
Grn ....... 5.6% ....... 1
SNP ....... -.-% ...... 22
Plaid ...... -.-% ....... 3

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:08 am New poll

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/prediction_home.html

CON ..... 23.3% ...... 66
LAB ..... 44.7% ..... 485
LIB ....... 9.2% ...... 59
Ref ...... 11.8% ....... 0
Grn ....... 5.8% ....... 2
SNP ....... 3.3% ...... 17
Plaid ...... 0.7% ....... 3


Shows, once again, how ridiculous FPTP electoral system is. Much as I hate them, if Reform have roughly 12% of the votes, they should have roughly 12% of the seats.
Equally, the Lib Dems, based on this poll, would go from 11.8% vote share to 9.2%, whilst going from 8 seats to 59.

Hopefully it'll create more public anger about our broken electoral system and put pressure on for change. Not that I see Starmer doing anything about it, despite his party conference having voted for electoral reform - he'll ride FPtP right the way to the end of his majority in 10 years' time and then surrender the country back to the Tories and their minority vote once again, because of a split progressive vote.

Puja

Here's the thing about FPTP. It gives disproportionate power to the biggest parties. But systems where seats are more strictly related to the votes tend to give disproportionate power to the smaller parties. That can lead to situations like Israel where leaders only interested in themselves rely on the most extreme party to stay in power and those extremists can get their agenda prioritised. I'm not sure which is worse. I think as long as we don't go too far down the US 2 party route then we're probably not too bad. If you're going to have a wholly proportionate chamber I would have it be the second one. Personally though I would make our second chamber even less proportionate by making it regionally proportionate (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England) and with a few people ex officio (the leaders of each major religion, the president of the supreme court, the leaders of most of the royal colleges and royal societies maybe a couple of University leaders, the leader of the ONS, you get the gist...)

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 1:34 am Here's the thing about FPTP. It gives disproportionate power to the biggest parties. But systems where seats are more strictly related to the votes tend to give disproportionate power to the smaller parties. That can lead to situations like Israel where leaders only interested in themselves rely on the most extreme party to stay in power and those extremists can get their agenda prioritised. I'm not sure which is worse. I think as long as we don't go too far down the US 2 party route then we're probably not too bad. If you're going to have a wholly proportionate chamber I would have it be the second one. Personally though I would make our second chamber even less proportionate by making it regionally proportionate (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England) and with a few people ex officio (the leaders of each major religion, the president of the supreme court, the leaders of most of the royal colleges and royal societies maybe a couple of University leaders, the leader of the ONS, you get the gist...)

I'm no fan of fptp for all the reasons outlined in this thread, but as Eugene says, other PR voting mechanisms bring their own problems. In Scotland we've had the Green party being power brokers despite almost no one voting for them and it's been a disaster. Careful what you wish for!

Is it worse than have a minority at the extreme end of 1 party holding that power? (see ERG in Cameron's government or DUP in May's; or that 1 senator in the US who's name I can't remember, but was the most right-wing Democrat in a 50:49 split).

IMO PR typically seems to bring a more collaborative parliamentary system, rather than combative; obviously far from completely so, especially in immature PR systems and coalitions.
I fail to see a way in which cooperation is worse than combat.

Besides, such warnings come across (to me) as a bit of "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the achievable"
There is no perfect system, but whilst we have political parties, FPTP is (about?) the least representative form of representative democracy.





Earlier this year (or was it last year?) there was a suggestion here that I thought was great, an adaptation of the Kiwi system.
If I've got this right:

You have X seats for a region, of which half are constituency MPs that are elected with FPtP as per normal. The other half are then filled up from the best performing losers in such a way that total X is fully proportional (and not just flown in by the party's preference).
A party only gets into the PR portion if they ran candidates in every constituency within the region (so SNP do for Scotland, PC do for Wales, Count Binface doesn't for wherever he stands).
Sensible to add transferable vote in there as well, which would boost the representational value of the PR portion.

To take a fictional region in England, and let's call it... Central.
Central has 60 seats in Westminster, split into 30 constituencies.
Those constituencies get their seats filled by FPTP, winner takes all.

Which may end up as (figures taken from yesterday's Electoral Calculus porediction) Con 3, Lab 24, Lib 3, Reform 0, Green 0
But with a vote split of Con 23.3%, Lab 44.7%, Lib 9.2%, Reform 11.8%, Green 5.8%, Other 5.2% (this "Other" really doesn't help the maths)

The losing candidates for each party in Central, are arranged in order of vote share locally
The 12 best performing, losing Conservatives candidates, get a PR seat for 25.0% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Labour candidates, get a PR seat for 46.7% regional representation
The 3 best performing, losing Lib Dem candidates, get a PR seat for 10.0% regional representation
The 7 best performing, losing Reform candidates, get a PR seat for 11.7% regional representation
The 4 best performing, losing Green candidates, get a PR seat for 6.7% regional representation

Each constituency gets the most popular local MP
Each region get represented proportionately, with the MP based on the vote share of each candidate.


Of course, if you're worried that a more accurate representation of voters being a bad thing, then you can always go for 30 FPtP, and 30 straight PR - so 3+7, 24+14, 3+3, 0+4, 0+2 - still a LOT better than the current system that would give 6, 48, 6, 0, 0 under FPtP




Personally, of courses, I'm in favour of devolved power (about the same as Scotland's) to the 9 English regions anyway (and bringing Wales and NI up to the same power-level), with elections as above, and then PR representation from each regional parliament to Westminster for national issues. But that's very much me.

Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 8:26 am

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 1:34 am Here's the thing about FPTP. It gives disproportionate power to the biggest parties. But systems where seats are more strictly related to the votes tend to give disproportionate power to the smaller parties. That can lead to situations like Israel where leaders only interested in themselves rely on the most extreme party to stay in power and those extremists can get their agenda prioritised. I'm not sure which is worse. I think as long as we don't go too far down the US 2 party route then we're probably not too bad. If you're going to have a wholly proportionate chamber I would have it be the second one. Personally though I would make our second chamber even less proportionate by making it regionally proportionate (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England) and with a few people ex officio (the leaders of each major religion, the president of the supreme court, the leaders of most of the royal colleges and royal societies maybe a couple of University leaders, the leader of the ONS, you get the gist...)

I'm no fan of fptp for all the reasons outlined in this thread, but as Eugene says, other PR voting mechanisms bring their own problems. In Scotland we've had the Green party being power brokers despite almost no one voting for them and it's been a disaster. Careful what you wish for!

I’m proud of you, Donny. You have come a long way. This was you in Oct 2022:
‘Personally, on voting systems, anything other than fptp for me, I see not a single redeeming feature in that voting system.‘

Only jesting with you. All the systems have drawbacks you just need to choose which you dislike the least

If we look even at western europe there seems to have been a rise in extremist parties gaining more than a toehold: Netherlands Italy etc. Arguably that's true of the Tories as well but they had to masquerade as being moderate-ish and now when they are presenting their true face they are about to get trounced. I'm not sure that's entirely coincidental. I'm loathe to change a voting system that will inevitably give "Reform" and it's ilk a stronger position and would in the past probably have seen BNP representation. Anyway, you pays your money and you takes your choice. None of us seems to be deluded about the choice.

The issue I suppose when it’s seen as a two horse race is that the main parties get infiltrated. If not in the majority then a solid pact of extremists such as the ERG can dominate a government that doesn’t have a big enough majority.

A reasonable politician would then look to work with another party to find common ground, except the current FPTP system seems to stymie that.

I was always a fan of FPTP, but the problem of wasted votes continues to be a problem, although any solution must keep a local connection in my view.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: ↑Sun Jun 02, 2024 1:34 am Here's the thing about FPTP. It gives disproportionate power to the biggest parties. But systems where seats are more strictly related to the votes tend to give disproportionate power to the smaller parties. That can lead to situations like Israel where leaders only interested in themselves rely on the most extreme party to stay in power and those extremists can get their agenda prioritised. I'm not sure which is worse. I think as long as we don't go too far down the US 2 party route then we're probably not too bad. If you're going to have a wholly proportionate chamber I would have it be the second one. Personally though I would make our second chamber even less proportionate by making it regionally proportionate (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England) and with a few people ex officio (the leaders of each major religion, the president of the supreme court, the leaders of most of the royal colleges and royal societies maybe a couple of University leaders, the leader of the ONS, you get the gist...)

agreed though not sure about your proportions there (20 from each on NI, Scotland, Wales, N England S England).