New Labour Leader

[KiwiScot 1,459]

20 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That misses the point. The driving force for the SNP's popularity, and Welsh nationalists, is the perceived dysfunctionality of Westminster politics. Withdrawal from the union is perceived as an answer to that; UK-wide reform to a proportional system is also an answer to that.

Make Westminster more functional and more representative overall, the nationalist sentiment in the other home nations will tend to dissolve. 

Agree to an extent, but the debate here is over emphasing the importance on the voting system which is currently one argument for the SNP to use against Westminister. Changing to PR at westminister could take one argument against independence away and maybe change over time how the country is governed, but the Tories would still be there and the cat's out the bag up here and it would take more than PR to make it dissolve. The dysfunctionality of the Tories, The English, Westminister however you call "them" the vitrol that is generated by people is one that's been in politics and the social grain of Scotland for a good long while. Devolution has given a platform for the SNP and finally gave the Scottish an alternative to Labour to vote for. So yes I agree a PR system could temper an argument against Scottish independence, but it would not hold back the dam without a fundamental change in how the goverments it generates operates.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,566]

5 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

Agree to an extent, but the debate here is over emphasing the importance on the voting system which is currently one argument for the SNP to use against Westminister. Changing to PR at westminister could take one argument against independence away and maybe change over time how the country is governed, but the Tories would still be there and the cat's out the bag up here and it would take more than PR to make it dissolve. The dysfunctionality of the Tories, The English, Westminister however you call "them" the vitrol that is generated by people is one that's been in politics and the social grain of Scotland for a good long while. Devolution has given a platform for the SNP and finally gave the Scottish an alternative to Labour to vote for. So yes I agree a PR system could temper an argument against Scottish independence, but it would not hold back the dam without a fundamental change in how the goverments it generates operates.

People will always vote Conservative; under PR, you can't form a majority government without 50% of the popular vote. None of the majority governments we've had, conservative or Labour, would have happened under PR.

[KiwiScot 1,459]

8 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

People will always vote Conservative; under PR, you can't form a majority government without 50% of the popular vote. None of the majority governments we've had, conservative or Labour, would have happened under PR.

Well it's definitely an argument for a unionist to make against the SNP that at this point could help win another referendum, but I just don't see it writing the wrongs of the past that has helped the momentum gather towards an evitable end which is independence. PR would also to me be an enabler to more referendums I feel.

[PurpleCanary 5,577]

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

And 1902 was going off at a complete tangent to my main point. Normally, when people start pointless tangential arguments it's because they're actually challenging your main point. If that wasn't what you  were both doing, then you were simply  making a really 4n4l semantic argument that I have no interest in. Chalk it up as a 'win' on your score board for all I care.

Single issue, multi issue, whatever, call them what you want; they are dead set on getting Scotland out of the UK by any possible means, no matter how it's dressed up; that is the raison d'être of the SNP.

Again, just flummery and non sequiturs and obvious attempts at misdirection. Luckily I didn’t for a moment think you would admit you were simply wrong and would actually apologise for lying about my posts/views. Not given that the last time you lied about me you came up with a Johnsonian non-apology apology and went on to call me an apologist for terrorism.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

People will always vote Conservative; under PR, you can't form a majority government without 50% of the popular vote. None of the majority governments we've had, conservative or Labour, would have happened under PR.

But you can form a coalition. And that is even worse than FPTP.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,566]

55 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Again, just flummery and non sequiturs and obvious attempts at misdirection. Luckily I didn’t for a moment think you would admit you were simply wrong and would actually apologise for lying about my posts/views. Not given that the last time you lied about me you came up with a Johnsonian non-apology apology and went on to call me an apologist for terrorism.

Non-sequiturs? What on Earth are you on about? You sound like a five-year-old experimenting with new vocabulary. 

Where did I 'lie' about your views? Quote it, please.

Actually, better yet, get the chip off your shoulder and grow up. 

Edit: Oh sorry, apologist for terrorism, now I see what you're spoiling to pick pointless arguments for; the pointless obsession with Israel/Palestine rises out of nowhere yet again. Well, yeah, you did sound like one as far as I was concerned. Stop sounding like an apologist for terrorism and I won't call you one, how's that?

Edited August 8, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,566]

39 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

But you can form a coalition. And that is even worse than FPTP.

Just to clarify, you hate the Tories, but you consider coalition government worse than being governed by the Conservatives in majority government, based on the votes of a minority of the popular vote, a large proportion of the time (even more now Scotland is in the thrall of the SNP)?

Edited August 8, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,566]

1 hour ago, PurpleCanary said:

Again, just flummery and non sequiturs and obvious attempts at misdirection. Luckily I didn’t for a moment think you would admit you were simply wrong and would actually apologise for lying about my posts/views. Not given that the last time you lied about me you came up with a Johnsonian non-apology apology and went on to call me an apologist for terrorism.

This whole thing basically stemmed from 1902 taking issue with my use of the word 'overrun', which was simply emotive language on the basis that I really despise  the Scot Nats and don't like how dominant they have become in Scotland, much like huge numbers of people on this forum indulge in copious hyperbolic comments about the Conservatives. Sue me. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Just to clarify, you hate the Tories, but you consider coalition government worse than being governed by the Conservatives in majority government, based on the votes of a minority of the popular vote, a large proportion of the time (even more now Scotland is in the thrall of the SNP)?

Your favour of PR means that minorities can actually carry the power. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,566]

17 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Your favour of PR means that minorities can actually carry the power. 

PR means a collection of minorities that make up more than 50% of the chamber carry the power collectively where they're willing to work together on issues. 

When you consider that both the Conservatives and Labour are effectively very unstable coalitions of warring factions within two broad groupings, the public voting for a wider range of parties with more specific and narrow policy platforms, which are weighted in parliament according to how much support they have, to then negotiate a programme for government while also keeping each other honest, is a far more transparent process than voting in one of two parties that has complete control with little transparency to its workings for 5 years. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

PR means a collection of minorities that make up more than 50% of the chamber carry the power collectively where they're willing to work together on issues. 

When you consider that both the Conservatives and Labour are effectively very unstable coalitions of warring factions within two broad groupings, the public voting for a wider range of parties with more specific and narrow policy platforms, which are weighted in parliament according to how much support they have, to then negotiate a programme for government while also keeping each other honest, is a far more transparent process than voting in one of two parties that has complete control with little transparency to its workings for 5 years. 

Well that is an award for the longest sentence.

So we end up like the Shoe Shop on the Scilly Isles. The owner sold mainly size eight and ten. So to carry less stock he ordered all size nine from the mainland.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,566]

17 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Well that is an award for the longest sentence.

So we end up like the Shoe Shop on the Scilly Isles. The owner sold mainly size eight and ten. So to carry less stock he ordered all size nine from the mainland.

Or, with a bit of innovation, shoes could be created that stretch to accomodate a wider range of sizes. 

The outcome of democratic processes to create legislation and policies is always one size to fit them all; it's a question of whether you want a size that is customised to fit a minority of the population extremely well, and everyone else terribly, or a majority of the population fairly well. Personally, I think fitting a majority fairly well is preferable, but each to their own. 

Edited August 9, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,310]

20 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

So we end up like the Shoe Shop on the Scilly Isles. The owner sold mainly size eight and ten. So to carry less stock he ordered all size nine from the mainland.

 

5 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Or, with a bit of innovation, shoes could be created that stretch to accomodate a wider range of sizes. 

Or, introduce a Hobbit gene into the human population and problem solved.

[TheGunnShow 5,977]

12 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

Well it's definitely an argument for a unionist to make against the SNP that at this point could help win another referendum, but I just don't see it writing the wrongs of the past that has helped the momentum gather towards an evitable end which is independence. PR would also to me be an enabler to more referendums I feel.

Nothing wrong with more referendums. Works very well in Switzerland. Very strongly suspect that you'll get the more informed taking part in those as well if referendums crop up on a regular basis.

[Creative Midfielder 2,000]

18 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

When you consider that both the Conservatives and Labour are effectively very unstable coalitions of warring factions within two broad groupings, the public voting for a wider range of parties with more specific and narrow policy platforms, which are weighted in parliament according to how much support they have, to then negotiate a programme for government while also keeping each other honest, is a far more transparent process than voting in one of two parties that has complete control with little transparency to its workings for 5 years. 

......... and I sometimes think I write in overlong sentences........😀

Nevertheless I agree completely with the point you make, especially since for the last four decades the durations of single party power have been much closer to 15 years than to 5.

[Newtopia 518]

Our society is massively divided currently, with most people believing their votes do not count. PR would mean every vote mattered, there would be calculated coalitions built but that is happening very transparently currently.

I think PR would improve situation, although stable government is really important it is more important that the government represent the population, opposed to representing a minority.

[horsefly 4,310]

2 hours ago, Newtopia said:

Our society is massively divided currently, with most people believing their votes do not count. PR would mean every vote mattered, there would be calculated coalitions built but that is happening very transparently currently.

I think PR would improve situation, although stable government is really important it is more important that the government represent the population, opposed to representing a minority.

Yep! And it forces people to listen to opposing views and work out a constructive way of moving forward for the benefit of all. It may be more "messy" than a typical clear cut result secured through FPTP but for me that is precisely something to be desired. Simply put, life is complex/messy, and a political system that recognises that fact rather than ignores it is far more likely to represent the variety of interests and concerns that exist in society. The 80 seat majority that Johnson secured at the last election is just yet another example of how FPTP is all too often grasped as an excuse to ignore the complexities of political reality and ride roughshod over the interests of many in the pursuit of narrow ideological  fantasies. FPTP also, as we have so painfully witnessed, secures the opportunity for malign actors to prove the truth of the old adage that, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

[horsefly 4,310]

This will annoy the Starmer haters. Good to see there still remains one party in the country whose leading figures don't spend each day during a national crisis indulging in ripping each other to pieces rather than helping those whose lives are being ruined:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/angela-rayner-backs-keir-starmer-over-decision-to-sack-her-partner-sam-tarry/ar-AA10twjS?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=143629aea6564cfaa7d15e6716ce87f9

[TheGunnShow 5,977]

PR is an improvement, but it's a very long way from being a panacea (and this is coming from the guy who's possibly been more critical of our FPTP model than any other on here).

The other fundamental issue, and I'm not sure if there's a solution for it, or if existing rules can be more stringently enforced, is the influence of big money in elections or even the media landscape.

[horsefly 4,310]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

PR is an improvement, but it's a very long way from being a panacea (and this is coming from the guy who's possibly been more critical of our FPTP model than any other on here).

The other fundamental issue, and I'm not sure if there's a solution for it, or if existing rules can be more stringently enforced, is the influence of big money in elections or even the media landscape.

Very true TGS! PR is just one important part of many changes desperately needed to rejuvenate our system of democracy in the UK. Political funding, lobbying, the House of Lords, are all things (among others) that require urgent reform. It would just be nice if my vote in South Norfolk was actually significant rather than rendered an irrelevance by FPTP and the artificiality of constituency boundaries; something that should be true throughout the land.

[PurpleCanary 5,577]

Interesting column in the FT on why dull politicians can be winners. I will be thrown out of the Davos club if I quote all of it but this is the conclusion:

"When Starmer is called a visionless bore, or Biden a life-long mediocrity, I hear only votes rolling in. Because so many people nowadays seek some kind of rapture in politics, they forget that an electorally decisive number of voters still don’t. Diligent, unprepossessing, best-of-a-bad-bunch candidates have long thrived in politics. What is new is the surprise when it happens."

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

10 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Interesting column in the FT on why dull politicians can be winners. I will be thrown out of the Davos club if I quote all of it but this is the conclusion:

"When Starmer is called a visionless bore, or Biden a life-long mediocrity, I hear only votes rolling in. Because so many people nowadays seek some kind of rapture in politics, they forget that an electorally decisive number of voters still don’t. Diligent, unprepossessing, best-of-a-bad-bunch candidates have long thrived in politics. What is new is the surprise when it happens."

There is a pattern though.

Thatcher. Major. Blair. Brown. Cameron. May. Johnson.

You don't have to be a contestant on Only Connect to see it.

[KiwiScot 1,459]

The Shadow of Corbyn speaks! A Norwich MP apparently. Just reinforces Labour full of rebels.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/16/idea-of-monarchy-as-symbol-of-duty-or-sacrifice-a-lie-says-labours-clive-lewis

[littleyellowbirdie 2,566]

36 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

The Shadow of Corbyn speaks! A Norwich MP apparently. Just reinforces Labour full of rebels.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/16/idea-of-monarchy-as-symbol-of-duty-or-sacrifice-a-lie-says-labours-clive-lewis

He has also spoken in favour of reform to a proportional electoral system, including internal campaigning for Labour to adopt it as policy. 

[Herman 9,804]

It is actually quite a decent opinion piece and one that I can completely empathise with. Worth reading.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/16/mourning-republicans-system-privilege

[horsefly 4,310]

6 hours ago, KiwiScot said:

The Shadow of Corbyn speaks! A Norwich MP apparently. Just reinforces Labour full of rebels.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/16/idea-of-monarchy-as-symbol-of-duty-or-sacrifice-a-lie-says-labours-clive-lewis

His timing is undoubtedly appalling, but what he said is pretty much on the mark. Presently, I believe there are many greater priorities than reforming the monarchy; for example, the existence of an unelected House of Lords is a far more insidious influence in our political system. However, it can hardly be denied that the institution of monarchy runs orthogonal to the fundamental principles of democracy. It is no coincidence that Charles III has consistently referred to the duties of "constitutional monarchy" rather than just "monarchy", in recognition that it is the will of the people expressed through a democratically elected parliament that is truly sovereign. The same can't be said for the corrupting influence of the unelected second chamber.

[KiwiScot 1,459]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

what he said is pretty much on the mark.

But if you wanted to win the election is this how you want to look or is it a forgone conclusion the tories will lose the next election?

[horsefly 4,310]

48 minutes ago, KiwiScot said:

But if you wanted to win the election is this how you want to look or is it a forgone conclusion the tories will lose the next election?

Indeed! As I said it was appalling timing. It would be much better to begin constitutional change by attacking something that the public generally rightly sees as far more insidious, the House of Lords. The monarchy may represent a hierarchy that is completely inconsistent with democracy, but the effects of monarchy on our political system are largely benign. The House of Lords by contrast is a cesspit of cronyism and corruption with actual political influence.

[Herman 9,804]

15 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Indeed! As I said it was appalling timing. It would be much better to begin constitutional change by attacking something that the public generally rightly sees as far more insidious, the House of Lords. The monarchy may represent a hierarchy that is completely inconsistent with democracy, but the effects of monarchy on our political system are largely benign. The House of Lords by contrast is a cesspit of cronyism and corruption with actual political influence.

My compromise solution would be;

For the monarchists the king will stay as head of state, with a pared down household.

For the republicans a massively pared down HOL. Down to about 500 of Britains best in areas such as science, culture, sport, education etc with an addition of local representitives.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

58 minutes ago, Herman said:

My compromise solution would be;

For the monarchists the king will stay as head of state, with a pared down household.

For the republicans a massively pared down HOL. Down to about 500 of Britains best in areas such as science, culture, sport, education etc with an addition of local representitives.

SKS will not change the HoL.