Jump to content
dylanisabaddog

Pinkun General Election thread (ID required)

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, sonyc said:

It took a crisis (the immediate aftermath of WW2) for a Beveridge plan. A national narrative of rebuilding.  So maybe a new version (in whatever guise) 'could' be possible again?

One of the things that is often overlooked when we laud Atlee's govt (quite correctly) is that it only lasted 6 years and the last of those was with a paper-thin majority.

After this time, the Tories got back with promises of tax cuts etc. The narrative of national rebuilding was depressingly short. IMO to get us back on our feet a far longer period is required, wherein lies the problem. To act too boldy runs the risk that they will lose office before the benefits start to become apparent - it takes years to build houses and infrastructure, train doctors etc. It has to be a 10 year strategy both politically as well as economically, which I imagine is at least part of the consideration in trying to build a coalition in as wide a church as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Badger said:

One of the things that is often overlooked when we laud Atlee's govt (quite correctly) is that it only lasted 6 years and the last of those was with a paper-thin majority.

After this time, the Tories got back with promises of tax cuts etc. The narrative of national rebuilding was depressingly short. IMO to get us back on our feet a far longer period is required, wherein lies the problem. To act too boldy runs the risk that they will lose office before the benefits start to become apparent - it takes years to build houses and infrastructure, train doctors etc. It has to be a 10 year strategy both politically as well as economically, which I imagine is at least part of the consideration in trying to build a coalition in as wide a church as possible.

What they need to do is use the majority to enact the changes and REFORM THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM SO THAT CHANGES CAN'T BE SO READILY REVERSED BY PUTTING AN END TO MAJORITY GOVERNMENTS*.

*Subject to a party not actually getting over 50% of the vote of course, which doesn't happen very often.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What they need to do is use the majority to enact the changes and REFORM THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM SO THAT CHANGES CAN'T BE SO READILY REVERSED BY PUTTING AN END TO MAJORITY GOVERNMENTS*.

*Subject to a party not actually getting over 50% of the vote of course, which doesn't happen very often.

I agree - I think that it could well lead to more stable, reasoned government, in most cases. My trouble is I agree with some elements of FPTP as well. I have been flip-flopping on this issue for decades. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Badger said:

I agree - I think that it could well lead to more stable, reasoned government, in most cases. My trouble is I agree with some elements of FPTP as well. I have been flip-flopping on this issue for decades. 

For all domestic policy, I don't see any downside to having a slower approach with more emphasis on consensus-building. I think the only problems relate to foreign policy, especially with regard to military deployment, which needs quick action. To be honest, I've become convinced it will have to come hand in hand with the introduction of a directly elected President with responsibility for the areas that practically require that sort of decisiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron claims Farage is out to destroy the Tory party. The Tory party has already pretty much achieved that by itself.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Badger said:

 It has to be a 10 year strategy both politically as well as economically, which I imagine is at least part of the consideration in trying to build a coalition in as wide a church as possible.

Well people are increasingly looking beyond the two big parties and there is nothing between them politically so maybe they could form a coalition for a government of national unity and look to solve all the long term issues?

Edited by Barbe bleu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rupert Lowe, the Reform candidate for Gt Yarmouth is constantly spewing his divisive, mostly made up hate rhetoric on his Facebook page.

Worth a look for the comments, which doesn't show the residents of Yarmouth in a great light.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

For all domestic policy, I don't see any downside to having a slower approach with more emphasis on consensus-building. I think the only problems relate to foreign policy, especially with regard to military deployment, which needs quick action. To be honest, I've become convinced it will have to come hand in hand with the introduction of a directly elected President with responsibility for the areas that practically require that sort of decisiveness.

Playing devils advocate though, PR means you’re dealing with the smaller parties who tend to be more extreme in their opinions (Greens being to the left of Labour, Reform to the right of the Tories etc). As the major parties have to deal with these parties to form a majority in PR wouldn’t you expect to see bigger swings between left and right after elections than we do at present as they would have to give them policy victories to get them to join the government, as opposed to the current system whereby major parties have to try and appeal to as broader base of the elect so tend to be more centrist?

Don't take this as a defence of FPTP, I’d like to see it changed but I think you’d see more violent swings of the pendulum under PR than we do under FPTP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Playing devils advocate though, PR means you’re dealing with the smaller parties who tend to be more extreme in their opinions (Greens being to the left of Labour, Reform to the right of the Tories etc). As the major parties have to deal with these parties to form a majority in PR wouldn’t you expect to see bigger swings between left and right after elections than we do at present as they would have to give them policy victories to get them to join the government, as opposed to the current system whereby major parties have to try and appeal to as broader base of the elect so tend to be more centrist?

Don't take this as a defence of FPTP, I’d like to see it changed but I think you’d see more violent swings of the pendulum under PR than we do under FPTP

Take the European parliament for example. The populist/far right presence grew significantly, but ultimately the centre still holds sway because centre left and centre right actually work constructively precisely to keep the extremes at bay.

If the extremes get big enough then even pr won't stop it, but FPTP simply isn't sustainable against a backdrop of the polarisation driven by the modern media landscape; you have to have a system that forces people to seek common ground.

To be honest, I'm uneasy that Reform is overtaking the Conservatives. We'll have one of two main parties that's no longer tethered to the centre ground at all, which will put us in very similar territory to where France, and I guess the States as well, is now.

 

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Playing devils advocate though, PR means you’re dealing with the smaller parties who tend to be more extreme in their opinions (Greens being to the left of Labour, Reform to the right of the Tories etc). As the major parties have to deal with these parties to form a majority in PR wouldn’t you expect to see bigger swings between left and right after elections than we do at present as they would have to give them policy victories to get them to join the government, as opposed to the current system whereby major parties have to try and appeal to as broader base of the elect so tend to be more centrist?

Don't take this as a defence of FPTP, I’d like to see it changed but I think you’d see more violent swings of the pendulum under PR than we do under FPTP

We tried a coalition Government in 2010. Quite simply, it didn't work. The people who voted Lib Dem didn't get what they voted for. Never again please. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

We tried a coalition Government in 2010. Quite simply, it didn't work. The people who voted Lib Dem didn't get what they voted for. Never again please. 

Nonsense. It was actually too good. We had an unprecedented level of transparency and, for all the Labour party's attacks, the extent of austerity cuts was smaller than what Labour proposed in its 2010 manifesto. So good, in fact, people couldn't get what a decent contribution the Lib Dems had made and gave all of the credit to the Conservatives and awarded the Conservatives with a majority in 2015 as a result.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Apparently Herman didn't know about the 2015 election result... did they not report it in the Guardian?

Bottom line is the public overall rated it better than the Labour government that left in 2010 regardless of what any jumped up Labour tub thumpers argue.

Edited by littleyellowbirdie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PR is just as flawed as FPTP, just in different ways. It won't get you any better politicians. (Might get you worse.)

The debate has been around for decades, and minds better than us cannot definitively decide which is best, that's why FPTP has not been replaced.

Right now, PR would suit the likes of Farage, so having FPTP suits me right now.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone that would and did vote LibDem I can categorically say the coalition was an unmitigated disaster for the party and the country. Maybe you should have paid attention. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Well people are increasingly looking beyond the two big parties and there is nothing between them politically so maybe they could form a coalition for a government of national unity and look to solve all the long term issues?

Sorry BB, but say that there is nothing between the two major parties is just crass stupidity. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

What they need to do is use the majority to enact the changes and REFORM THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM SO THAT CHANGES CAN'T BE SO READILY REVERSED BY PUTTING AN END TO MAJORITY GOVERNMENTS*.

*Subject to a party not actually getting over 50% of the vote of course, which doesn't happen very often.

I guess you haven't followed European politics since WWII.  PR has NOT prevented systemic corruption (often much worse than we've seen in the UK). PR has led to extremist parties having influence way beyond what their electoral vote justifies. PR has often led to sclerotic inaction (The Belgians were without a government for over a year as the various parties exploited PR to trade for the best self-interested deal). 

In principle I'm actually in favour of PR. In practice I see no evidence that there has been a system implemented in Europe that is an improvement on what we have. I'd rather see PR introduced for a new democratically elected second chamber to replace the Lords. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Herman said:

As someone that would and did vote LibDem I can categorically say the coalition was an unmitigated disaster for the party and the country. Maybe you should have paid attention. 

In what way?  Apart from the coalitions during WWII and the Lib-Lab pacts, the Liberals had the privilege of being in government for the first time in 100 years.  Yes, they had to shelve some of their idealism when faced with the realities of decision-making, but they provided an arguably important check on some aspects of Conservative policy.  OK, much of their support deserted them at the next election, but that was because most felt that their ideological principles had been betrayed, but that’s the reality of having to deal with complex problems rather than just pontificating from the sidelines. 

Edited by Naturalcynic
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Take the European parliament for example. The populist/far right presence grew significantly, but ultimately the centre still holds sway because centre left and centre right actually work constructively precisely to keep the extremes at bay.

If the extremes get big enough then even pr won't stop it, but FPTP simply isn't sustainable against a backdrop of the polarisation driven by the modern media landscape; you have to have a system that forces people to seek common ground.

To be honest, I'm uneasy that Reform is overtaking the Conservatives. We'll have one of two main parties that's no longer tethered to the centre ground at all, which will put us in very similar territory to where France, and I guess the States as well, is now.

 

I personally think you’d be much more likely to see a Tory/Reform bloc vs a Labour/Green bloc rather than some grand centrist coalition of the traditional parties.

I’m also don’t think Reform will take the Tories place long term. They’re essentially a one man band and once they lose Farage they’ll lose the bulk of their support. His brand of financial Thatcherism wouldn’t be a vote winner, it’s only our shambles of an immigration system that keeps him winning votes. Either party gets to grips with that (not that I’m holding my breath on that to be honest) and he’ll struggle 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Badger said:

Sorry BB, but say that there is nothing between the two major parties is just crass stupidity. 

I don’t believe there is much between them personally. Even Starmer has largely campaigned on just being more competent rather than any different policies or ideology 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I personally think you’d be much more likely to see a Tory/Reform bloc vs a Labour/Green bloc rather than some grand centrist coalition of the traditional parties.

I’m also don’t think Reform will take the Tories place long term. They’re essentially a one man band and once they lose Farage they’ll lose the bulk of their support. His brand of financial Thatcherism wouldn’t be a vote winner, it’s only our shambles of an immigration system that keeps him winning votes. Either party gets to grips with that (not that I’m holding my breath on that to be honest) and he’ll struggle 

It's all pie in the sky right now anyway, won't be happening anytime soon. If we got near a referendum in the next 2 parliaments I would be surprised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I don’t believe there is much between them personally. Even Starmer has largely campaigned on just being more competent rather than any different policies or ideology 

Poles apart then.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I don’t believe there is much between them personally. Even Starmer has largely campaigned on just being more competent rather than any different policies or ideology 

So leaving the ECHR rights is just a minor difference? I think that I'm right in saying that only Belarus have done this - Russia, was kicked out in 2022. This isn't a big difference?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Badger said:

So leaving the ECHR rights is just a minor difference? I think that I'm right in saying that only Belarus have done this - Russia, was kicked out in 2022. This isn't a big difference?

That too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Daz Sparks said:

It's all pie in the sky right now anyway, won't be happening anytime soon. If we got near a referendum in the next 2 parliaments I would be surprised.

I agree I don’t think it will happen. It suits the major parties too much for them to change it, the only chance for a referendum is the next time there’s a hung parliament and it’s a condition of the minor party 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Badger said:

So leaving the ECHR rights is just a minor difference? I think that I'm right in saying that only Belarus have done this - Russia, was kicked out in 2022. This isn't a big difference?

We’ve already had this discussion so I’ve no wish to repeat it, it just ends up going round in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

In what way?  Apart from the coalitions during WWII and the Lib-Lab pacts, the Liberals had the privilege of being in government for the first time in 100 years.  Yes, they had to shelve some of their idealism when faced with the realities of decision-making, but they provided an arguably important check on some aspects of Conservative policy.  OK, much of their support deserted them at the next election, but that was because most felt that their ideological principles had been betrayed, but that’s the reality of having to deal with complex problems rather than just pontificating from the sidelines. 

The LDs in 2010 were dominated by the Orange Book liberals and were arguably to the right of Cameron's Tories. People, myself included, had not fully realised this in 2010. When they came to understand this, the LDs were destroyed.

There are now signs that the party are being restored to the progressive wing of politics, but they are still a long way short of Charles Kennedy or even Paddy Ashdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...