Refreshing British Democracy

[horsefly 4,318]

38 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/sep/24/keir-starmer-defies-call-for-changes-to-first-past-the-post-voting-system

That's from September 2022. It's a concrete statement from the Keir Starmer ruling it out. Are you feeling stupid yet?

Oh dear, you really do like to prove your ignorance don't you. Starmer said he would rule it out FOR THE NEXT MANIFESTO "Keir Starmer has ruled out including any support for a change in the voting system in Labour’s election manifesto", "The Labour leader said electoral reform was not a priority" . He did not say he was against the principle of  PR, he said it was not a priority. Yet again you lie about what was ACTUALLY said to suit your own political viewpoint. I have already stated several times the reasons why it would be political suicide for Labour to commit a future government to abolition of the Lords and reform of the Commons in the same term of power.

Note the date of the article, September 22, a time when the nation was (and still is) gripped with genuine fear about the dire consequences of the cost of living crisis. Unlike you, Starmer was never going to hand the Tories a gift on a plate. You don't need much wit or imagination to envisage the gleeful Tory propogandists pointing out that while Labour's manifesto pledged to indulge in wasting precious government months "fixing" the election system in its favour, the Tory manifesto would pledge to deal with the real issues that confront hard working families, and get on with the business of saving the economy, the NHS, the education system, and putting affordable food onto the tables of the nations families.

Frankly I'm astonished that you are so remarkably politically naïve, that this doesn't occur to you. Are you feeling stupid yet?

Edited December 19, 2022 by horsefly

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

16 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear, you really do like to prove your ignorance don't you. Starmer said he would rule it out FOR THE NEXT MANIFESTO "Keir Starmer has ruled out including any support for a change in the voting system in Labour’s election manifesto". He did not say he was against the principle of  PR. Yet again you try to twist words to suit your own political viewpoint. I have already stated several times the reasons why it would be political suicide for Labour to commit a future government to abolition of the Lords and reform of the Commons in the same term of power.

Note the date of the article, September 22, a time when the nation was (and still is) gripped with genuine fear about the dire consequences of the cost of living crisis. Unlike you, Starmer was never going to hand the Tories a gift on a plate. You don't need much wit or imagination to envisage the gleeful Tory propogandists pointing out that while Labour's manifesto pledged to indulge in wasting precious government months "fixing" the election system in its favour, the Tory manifesto would pledge to deal with the real issues that confront hard working families, and get on with the business of saving the economy, the NHS, the education system, and putting affordable food onto the tables of the nations families.

Frankly I'm astonished that you are so remarkably politically naïve, that this doesn't occur to you. Are you feeling stupid yet?

Wow. After all you've said claiming he's firmly in favour of it, and your pontificating about the lack of the word 'trust' in Sturgeon's piece in an unparalleled piece of pedantry, this apologist construction is hilarious. Labour is bold enough to pretty much propose a root and branch reform of our ENTIRE system of government at every level in its document without fear of what the Conservatives will say... except the Commons.. because they're 'afraid' according to you. Committing to abolishing FPTP did no harm in 1997 and it will do no harm now. You really are a joke; a vacuous Labour happy clapper.

Edited December 19, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Wow. After all you've said claiming he's firmly in favour of it, and your pontificating about the lack of the word 'trust' in Sturgeon's piece in an unparalleled piece of pedantry, this apologist construction is hilarious. Labour is bold enough to pretty much propose a root and branch reform of our ENTIRE constitution in it's document... except the commons. You really are a joke.

You really are remarkably ignorant. Starmer said PR is NOT A PRIORITY for the next manifesto. What is it about simple English language that you find so difficult? 

"your pontificating about the lack of the word 'trust' in Sturgeon's piece in an unparalleled piece of pedantry" And there you go again with your oh so obvious attempt to deflect from the fact that you lie about what people actually say. I merely pointed out that Sturgeon never used the word trust in her speech and never made any claim that PR would restore trust. She's not stupid enough to make such a claim given the huge amounts of corruption that has been exposed in countries using a PR system of election. Sensibly she stuck to the obvious merits of PR as providing a greater voice for different viewpoints. It doesn't get much more Trumpian than complaining that someone is a "pedant" for simply pointing out the truth of what has actually been said in response to another person's attempt to distort the reality for their own ends. How very sad to continually resort to such pathetic tactics.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

12 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You really are remarkably ignorant. Starmer said PR is NOT A PRIORITY for the next manifesto. What is it about simple English language that you find so difficult? 

"your pontificating about the lack of the word 'trust' in Sturgeon's piece in an unparalleled piece of pedantry" And there you go again with your oh so obvious attempt to deflect from the fact that you lie about what people actually say. I merely pointed out that Sturgeon never used the word trust in her speech and never made any claim that PR would restore trust. She's not stupid enough to make such a claim given the huge amounts of corruption that has been exposed in countries using a PR system of election. Sensibly she stuck to the obvious merits of PR as providing a greater voice for different viewpoints. It doesn't get much more Trumpian than complaining that someone is a "pedant" for simply pointing out the truth of what has actually been said in response to another person's attempt to distort the reality for their own ends. How very sad to continually resort to such pathetic tactics.

The reference to the big two was a clear veiled criticism of Labour and the Conservatives obvious to anybody who wasn't stupid or simply being obstinate. For someone who claims I'm 'naive' for not buying your ridiculous claptrap you've got some brass, I'll give you that.

It's incredible really. You claim to be a supporter of reforming the Commons, yet have made every excuse possible in excusing the main barrier to reform - The Labour Party - for not playing ball with the whole range of other progressive parties that want this to happen.

As for Trumpian, well, that really is your go to put-down isn't it along with your stupid overuse of hyperbolic adjectives: 'Astonishing', 'bizarre', blah blah blah. Carry on, you pretentious little Labour web warrior .

While we're at it, why did you choose the moniker Horsefly? Is it because you see a parallel between yourself and a nasty, biting, flying insect with no redeeming features, or do you aspire to be more like one?

Edited December 19, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

2 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The reference to the big two was a clear veiled criticism of Labour and the Conservatives obvious to anybody who wasn't stupid or simply being obstinate. For someone who claims I'm 'naive' for not buying your ridiculous claptrap you've got some brass, I'll give you that.

As for Trumpian, well, that really is your go to put-down isn't it along with your long list of stupid overuse of hyperbolic adjectives: 'Astonishing', 'bizarre', blah blah blah. Carry on you good little Labour web warrior .

So, nothing to say about your lies that Starmer is "concretely" against PR as opposed to what he actually said which was that it is not a "priority" for the next manifesto.

You don't have the remotest interest in genuine debate. Shock horror, Sturgeon doesn't like Labour or the Tories. Just how do you get from that to your made up crap about her claiming PR would resolve "trust issues". As for use of "hyperbolic adjectives", do you not read your own posts. Perhaps I should publish the stream of four-letter vitriolic abuse you posted to my private message box.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

4 hours ago, horsefly said:

So, nothing to say about your lies that Starmer is "concretely" against PR as opposed to what he actually said which was that it is not a "priority" for the next manifesto.

You don't have the remotest interest in genuine debate. Shock horror, Sturgeon doesn't like Labour or the Tories. Just how do you get from that to your made up crap about her claiming PR would resolve "trust issues". As for use of "hyperbolic adjectives", do you not read your own posts. Perhaps I should publish the stream of four-letter vitriolic abuse you posted to my private message box.

 

It's not a lie; he has ruled it out of the next manifesto. If it's off the table for the next manifesto then that's firmly ruling it out, unless you're suggesting Keir Starmer is a liar and fully intends to deliver it while pretending not to? Actually, I have noticed that's a a common trait with Labour online warriors like yourself: They claim that the words Labour say are just a cunning ruse to mislead stupid people. That was actually very common in the 2017 GE as Labour protagonists went around the remain forums trying to con remainers into supporting that idiot Corbyn.  Not really a great advert for conducting politics with integrity, is it? Does Labour send you all off to special schools to learn these silly games you all play?

And actually, of all the times that Labour could have chosen to elect such an unelectable fool, it had to be right at the time when the UK could have used a half decent alternative government to get us out of the dilemma created by the referendum. At least the Lib Dems tried to pick up the pieces and fight a proper rearguard action as Labour sat on its hands. It's a pity Labour hadn't lied about its reform of the Commons before, or maybe in the absence of the FPTP spoiler effect and a properly representative system, the majority of the elecorate that wanted to revoke article 50 might have got their way. But no, Labour like FPTP and we'll just have to suck up the regular majority Conservative governments.

I have no regrets about any of the PMs I sent you, you piece of utter scum. How many times had you called me a liar before that yon here, you verminous piece of sh*t? As I said at the time, if you wanted to report it, I'm sure any moderators are smart enough to put it in context, you second-rate waste of space.

You want a proper debate? Don't make me laugh.

Tell you what though, it's clear that a fair few people do want to talk about reform for the House of Commons, but I notice you've barely engaged with any of that. Asked several times about your preferred forms of PR and you had nothing whatsoever to offer.

You gave yourself away on your Lords thread in the way you were so obviously desperate to shut down conversation about why they'd ignored the Commons in their wide range of reforms.Honestly, trying to keep the Commons out of debate of the Lords as off-topic from a guy who like yourself regularly departs off onto rambling and genuinely irrelevant nonsense. Like hell do you support adopting PR, you lying low-life. If you did, you'd try and do something about it.

But still you ramble on and on bemoaning Brexit, while in the same breath cheerleading Labour for preventing the one change that might actually make a return to the EU possible.

And before you start your inane questioning on that topic. Read up on what AC Grayling has to say and ask him.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[horsefly 4,318]

missing

Edited December 20, 2022 by horsefly

[horsefly 4,318]

7 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not a lie; he has ruled it out of the next manifesto. If it's off the table for the next manifesto then that's firmly ruling it out, unless you're suggesting Keir Starmer is a liar and fully intends to deliver it while pretending not to?

Pathetic! You did not previously claim that Starmer is "concretely" against PR "just for the next manifesto", you claimed he (and indeed the entire Labour leadership) is opposed to PR full stop. Ruling out PR from the next manifesto does not remotely, under any perverted interpretation of the English language, mean or imply that he is against PR. Attempt to manipulate your previous lie as much as you like, it remains patently obvious that you are lying. Otherwise, when I tell my partner that painting the bathroom is not a priority next year I would imply that I am concretely against painting the bathroom at any point in the future. Truly an absurd conclusion! I have already explained why Starmer would consider it electoral suicide to make a pledge to introduce it to the next manifesto but you are too disingenuous to attempt a reply to the actual points made.

As regards the rest of your post, I have no intention to report its vile content to the moderators. I'm delighted that you have revealed your true nature for all to see. 

I have no regrets about any of the PMs I sent you, you piece of utter scum. How many times had you called me a liar before that yon here, you verminous piece of sh*t? As I said at the time, if you wanted to report it, I'm sure any moderators are smart enough to put it in context, you second-rate waste of space.

Must make your family proud!

Edited December 20, 2022 by horsefly

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

Anyway, full Swiss, anyone?

[king canary 7,680]

Shame that such an interesting thread has ended up with the usual suspects bickering with each other and is now basically unreadable.

Maybe just block each other?

[king canary 7,680]

On 17/12/2022 at 11:56, littleyellowbirdie said:

Any system can deliver undesirable results from someone's perspective, but ultimately, if a system fairly reflects the views of the people in the society and has widespread support of the society, which is the case for Germany and Israel, how can it be 'wrong'?

 

I often see this as an argument for FPTP- basically 'it keeps parties like UKIP/Brexit Party out.' But that is fundamentally undemocratic in my mind. I may not like UKIP but if north of 10% of the votes cast in a General Election ala 2015 are for them then that needs to be reflected in parliament. 

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

I often see this as an argument for FPTP- basically 'it keeps parties like UKIP/Brexit Party out.' But that is fundamentally undemocratic in my mind. I may not like UKIP but if north of 10% of the votes cast in a General Election ala 2015 are for them then that needs to be reflected in parliament. 

Precisely, and it spoke volumes that UKIP and similar always did quite well in the European elections as they use the d'Hondt approach of PR.

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

16 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Precisely, and it spoke volumes that UKIP and similar always did quite well in the European elections as they use the d'Hondt approach of PR.

Turn out was always terribly low though - most didn't bother (only those very opinionated) so you got quite a distorted view. As an aside it always amuses me slightly that the European Parliament was brought into being to address the perceived 'democratic' deficit with previously commissioners making up the SM rules etc. Oddly the Brexiters had more issues it seemed with democratic EU parliament rather than the earlier system! I guess it made the EU seem more like a nascent super-state to them. 

I do think however we need to think about compulsory voting - even if its for a deliberate none of the above!

Also if 90 years old can vote so can 16 year olds. 

These two change would likely completely change our politics for the better at a stroke (less what the pensioners want and more what the country as a whole needs looking forward).

Edited December 20, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,318]

42 minutes ago, king canary said:

Shame that such an interesting thread has ended up with the usual suspects bickering with each other and is now basically unreadable.

Maybe just block each other?

Indeed! but falsehoods always need challenging and that was precisely what I did by providing evidence and argument. Sadly, LYB could only respond with a stream of vile abuse and refusal to engage in genuine debate. The example of his claims about Starmer's position are classic LYB misinformation to serve his own ends. It would have been simpler for him to acknowledge that Starmer is not anti-PR but simply against introducing it to the next Labour manifesto as a "priority" (for precisely the sort of reasons I have raised). He could then have tried to make an argument for why PR reform would justifiably be more of a priority than dealing with the other crises confronting the country, but he didn't do that. An interesting debate could have then ensued but instead he attempted to short cut by lying about what Starmer actually said and throwing disgraceful abuse at me to deflect from that manipulation. Exactly the same happened in his claims about Sturgeon's speech. For debate to be possible there has to be at minimum an agreement (tacit or explicit) to represent with veracity the views of those whose views are being discussed. 

On Sunday I posted the following in an attempt at conciliation, in the interest of focusing discussion on the issues rather than personal attacks and manipulation of evidence. Obviously it was foolish of me to think he wouldn't simply ignore my plea:

Worthwhile debate on these issues is only genuinely possible if we are prepared to represent the views expressed by others with veracity. If you wish to add your own claims about PR and trust to Sturgeon's views that's fine; but own those additions as your views and not claim that they were made by Sturgeon. Sometimes in our earnest commitment to a cause we read into a statement something that simply isn't there, and I respectfully suggest that's what you have done here. We have all done it, and it doesn't mean we have acted in malice in falling foul of such an error.

I get that you are an enthusiastic supporter of PR, so am I. I get that you are genuinely committed to the eradication of corruption from our political system, so am I. I get that you want to see trust restored to our political system, so do I. Where we differ is in our beliefs about the extent to which PR would reform our political system. I believe it to be a necessary reform to advance the cause of genuine democratic representation of the different political voices of the nation. We clearly agree on that point. We clearly disagree over the issue concerning the power of PR to restore trust in UK politics. I look to the history of European countries that use PR and see no evidence whatsoever that it has a better record than FPTP on reducing corruption and increasing trust. Thus for me, PR is a necessary reform in regenerating participation in our democracy, but one that will require additional and separate reforms to parliamentary processes to enshrine transparency and integrity if trust is to be restored. There is much we could usefully discuss about the reforms required alongside the campaign for PR and greater representation. So perhaps we could do just that.

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

38 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Turn out was always terribly low though - most didn't bother (only those very opinionated) so you got quite a distorted view. As an aside it always amuses me slightly that the European Parliament was brought into being to address the perceived 'democratic' deficit with previously commissioners making up the SM rules etc. Oddly the Brexiters had more issues it seemed with democratic EU parliament rather than the earlier system! I guess it made the EU seem more like a nascent super-state to them. 

I do think however we need to think about compulsory voting - even if its for a deliberate none of the above!

Also if 90 years old can vote so can 16 year olds. 

These two change would likely completely change our politics for the better at a stroke (less what the pensioners want and more what the country as a whole needs looking forward).

Lower turnout might not necessarily mean distorted. I mentioned that with one of my proposals re. regular referendums as takes place in Switzerland, and I suspect in those cases (not necessarily MEP elections) that you'll get the more informed passing the votes as opposed to the apathetic who just don't or aren't all that interested.

[Creative Midfielder 2,003]

49 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I do think however we need to think about compulsory voting - even if its for a deliberate none of the above!

Also if 90 years old can vote so can 16 year olds. 

These two change would likely completely change our politics for the better at a stroke (less what the pensioners want and more what the country as a whole needs looking forward).

100% this ^, although I think it almost goes without saying that I'd love to see our horrible FPTP system ditched in favour of PR as well 😃

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

55 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I do think however we need to think about compulsory voting - even if its for a deliberate none of the above!

Also if 90 years old can vote so can 16 year olds. 

These two changes would likely completely change our politics for the better at a stroke (less what the pensioners want and more what the country as a whole needs looking forward).

 

4 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

100% this ^, although I think it almost goes without saying that I'd love to see our horrible FPTP system ditched in favour of PR as well 😃

Actually - I think these two changes would be unarguable and relatively easy to achieve even under our current FPTP system. How can anyone argue against them so should get cross party support ?

Someone should recommend that to SKS for the next parliament!

[Barbe bleu 833]

.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Barbe bleu

[Herman 9,838]

7 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Anyway, full Swiss, anyone?

That normally means added mushrooms and cheese.😀

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,198]

3 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

I do think however we need to think about compulsory voting - even if its for a deliberate none of the above!

 

Compulsory voting would kick the idea that only voting in person (with or without ID) is allowed right into touch 

No way I'm paying for a flight and wasting 2 days to vote against the conservatives in  Sevenoaks!

EDIT - I'm not suggesting YF has proposed the idea of abolishing postal voting, I'm just saying that the two positions are mutually exclusive, in my opinion 

Edited December 20, 2022 by How I Wrote Elastic Man

[Mr Apples 1,335]

2 hours ago, Herman said:

That normally means added mushrooms and cheese.😀

That theory is just full of holes. 🧀🤣

Apples

[Van wink 2,994]

Anyone seen Bill?

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

Anyone seen Bill?

You see him everywhere, so let us know.

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, horsefly said:

You see him everywhere, so let us know.

thanks for the reply 😃

[TheGunnShow 6,023]

20 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Actually - I think these two changes would be unarguable and relatively easy to achieve even under our current FPTP system. How can anyone argue against them so should get cross party support ?

Someone should recommend that to SKS for the next parliament!

There's part of me thinking that as much as I'm not personally keen on the idea of compulsory voting like there is in Belgium or Australia, it might rejuvenate the Monster Raving Loony Party if they acted as a "no" party like what happened in Belgium.

Obviously, this was an extreme case and a manifesto that sucked in more ways than one, but I'm also sure it's a manifesto promise many would, er.... get behind after, er... considering the figures.

EDIT: Google Tania Derveaux and the 2007 Belgium elections. You'll get the idea.

Edited December 21, 2022 by TheGunnShow

[Yellow Fever 3,841]

46 minutes ago, Van wink said:

thanks for the reply 😃

Many of us are lookibng to have words with Sid.

[horsefly 4,318]

1 hour ago, Van wink said:

thanks for the reply 😃

You're very welcome! You're such a rare visitor these days I was beginning to think you had passed on. I now realise you have been making a noble attempt to keep your five-year old joke as fresh as possible, with less frequent repetition. Perhaps if you do locate Bill you should ask him to lend you a new joke, I distinctly remember him  saying he had been a stand-up comedian once upon a time. I'm sure he would be happy to oblige.

[Van wink 2,994]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

You're very welcome! You're such a rare visitor these days I was beginning to think you had passed on. 

You should know very well from your record on here that posters don’t pass on Billy, they just change their identity….in fairness you appear to have been behaving, from what I see on my rare visits here, but you’re obsessive desire to have the last word will always give you away. Toodle pip!

Edited December 21, 2022 by Van wink

[horsefly 4,318]

2 hours ago, Van wink said:

You should know very well from your record on here that posters don’t pass on Billy, they just change their identity….in fairness you appear to have been behaving, from what I see on my rare visits here, but you’re obsessive desire to have the last word will always give you away. Toodle pip!

Last word? Never!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,604]

 

An enjoyable piece by David Mitchell from the Observer calling for Labour to back PR for the Commons.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/dec/11/starmers-reform-of-the-ermine-trimmed-lords-wont-stop-fur-flying-on-the-left