advertisement


Labour Leader: Keir Starmer VI

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony L said:
I’m not denying that, though the far-right has unquestionably gained the largest land-grab of my lifetime by far through their Brexit project. I knew it was going to be bad and it is exponentially worse than I feared. Collapse and descent into fascism I suspected would take decades is happening in months. 1970s National Front policy is now routinely being implemented by an allegedly mainstream Conservative Party.

The electoral system is the root problem, and the mainstream Labour Party the clammy fat decaying shitberg blocking its removal. Only once we have democratic representation and accountability can any alternative economic or other political thinking stand even a hope in hell of gaining traction.
Click to expand...
The problem you have got is getting Centrists to vote for constitutional change.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
If you have a choice of two, bad, options the lesser evil strategy is all you've got.
Click to expand...
Have to disagree. We do not have a choice of two bad options, we have a whole range of choices. Vote for the least evil yes, but there are other options that are a lot less evil that the top two.
 
ks.234 said:
Have to disagree. We do not have a choice of two bad options, we have a whole range of choices. Vote for the least evil yes, but there are other options that are a lot less evil that the top two.
Click to expand...
OK, I'll amend my point:

If you have a choice of two, bad, options, plus a handful of irrelevant, no-hopers, the lesser evil strategy is all you've got, unless you think voting for a no-hoper will make a difference.
 
ks.234 said:
The problem you have got is getting Centrists to vote for constitutional change.
Click to expand...

Yes. The priority is recognising that fact and working on it. We have the best opportunity for decades right now to make the argument. Boris Johnson could only possibly exist under a totally rigged system of FPTP. He and his entirely corrupt piss-taking kleptocracy would not stand even the slightest hope in hell in any functioning representative democracy.

As such if there is a Labour leadership election the priority has to be placing someone who pledges to implement PR in that role. Nothing else matters.

PR kills elite Tory establishment rule stone dead. It renders it impossible. They know it damn well. Our job is to make sure everyone else does too.
 
ks.234 said:
It wasn’t the left that voted for Trump. Neither was it the left who voted for Johnson.

It was the centrists in both cases who rejected real alternatives to Trump and Johnson. It was the centrists who voted for continuity rather than change.

Centrists hold the power, not the left. The left is dead or dying. If the future is hopeless, only centrists can change it.
Click to expand...
It will take a combination of the center left and the left voting tactically with the sole aim of removing the Tories from power. This inevitably requires a lot of people to vote for someone who may not be their first choice.
 
sean99 said:
It will take a combination of the center left and the left voting tactically with the sole aim of removing the Tories from power. This inevitably requires a lot of people to vote for someone who may not be their first choice.
Click to expand...
Which assumes that the centrists will vote for what we already have. Which is where the problem lies.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
OK, I'll amend my point:

If you have a choice of two, bad, options, plus a handful of irrelevant, no-hopers, the lesser evil strategy is all you've got, unless you think voting for a no-hoper will make a difference.
Click to expand...
Mmmmm. I’ve voted for the lesser of two evils most of my life, and that has only made the problem worse!
 
The problem is that if elections are won from the centre (as I think you've said before) then if centrists continue down the well-worn path, voting for a no-hope candidate won't make a difference. And your UKIP analogy is only partly valid, because UKIP voters are, by definition, not from the centre.

The best hope for change is that Green politics gain enough traction due to environmental concerns, that they become the 'new UKIP' in terms of wielding influence disproportionate to their vote share. I've started voting Green in local elections for the last 5 years or so. Made no difference whatsoever, the candidate usually polls in very low triple figures and it barely moves from one election to the next. I've voted LibDem in general elections for decades, for the same reason you recommend - I'm not voting for 'least worst' but for change. Again, it makes sod all difference. I have to ask myself: if I'd voted 'least worst' rather than 'neither of those, thanks' would we be in a better place now?
 
Tony L said:
Yes. The priority is recognising that fact and working on it. We have the best opportunity for decades right now to make the argument. Boris Johnson could only possibly exist under a totally rigged system of FPTP. He and his entirely corrupt piss-taking kleptocracy would not stand even the slightest hope in hell in any functioning representative democracy.

As such if there is a Labour leadership election the priority has to be placing someone who pledges to implement PR in that role. Nothing else matters.

PR kills elite Tory establishment rule stone dead. It renders it impossible. They know it damn well. Our job is to make sure everyone else does too.
Click to expand...

Yes! A vanishingly small band of a disgustingly rich parasite class running our country is an embarrassment and a stain us as citizens ("subjects" actually).

Killing "elite Tory establishment rule stone dead" is a very powerful and persuasive argument for PR. Anyone campaigning for it should put that message (and no other) at the front of their campaign. It cuts through any mimsy arguments about how it would all be "too complicated" and "no-one understands it". "End Posh Tory Rule Forever". I'd vote for it.
 
Tony L said:
Do you think the worst of this government could have happened with those numbers, e.g. the economically and socially disastrous hard-Brexit, the removal of our human rights and civil liberties, the visceral fascism of Patel’s Rwanda human trafficking, the multi-£bn corruption and theft, the selling of peerages to donors, Johnson’s endless lying, rule-breaking and taking the piss out of us all? There is no way in hell any of that would have been allowed and the UK could have been saved from its current place as the dumpster fire of Europe.
Click to expand...

I don't know, because under PR, all you get is a rebalance of political party representation in Government. It's all down to how elected representatives would then have voted on government bills, and as Seanm says, sufficient support would have been found from Labour (either as a direct support or abstention) to have made many of them happen.

Tony L said:
You seem to be misunderstanding the concepts of consensus government and political accountability.
...
I do not want any party to ever have a majority. I want to see all our voices heard. I want to see extremism of all kinds stopped in its tracks.
Click to expand...

PR is *not* the panacea you think it would be. Even if you can have a more accurate reflection of ticks in boxes on the night of the GE, that does not give you representative voting on issues. If you haven't, it's worth a read of the link I posted before (https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk...have-looked-with-proportional-representation/). ISTM that what you want is greater Electorate control over every parliamentary vote and that is never going to happen. It would be great if it did, but that's not how it's done elsewhere and it's not how it would ever be implemented in the UK.

Voting will still be along party lines, as there will still be a party structure and for reasons I have stated previously accountability would be, at best, no different than now and possibly worse - decisions in Parliament will still be made by someone you voted in and 'coalitions' for voting will be on an issue by issue basis like now and could see compromise away from what you thought you were voting for.

Of course, a risk is that, again to link back to Seanm's point, is that you might find that most of the UK doesn't think like you or the majority of PFM and support for all of those policies remain.
 
What’s the betting that No.10 will be on the phone to the local Tory Gauleiter to insist Durham police charge Starmer or will Big Dog make a public display of magnanimity and ask for a line to be drawn under ‘events’?
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
The problem is that if elections are won from the centre (as I think you've said before) then if centrists continue down the well-worn path, voting for a no-hope candidate won't make a difference. And your UKIP analogy is only partly valid, because UKIP voters are, by definition, not from the centre.

The best hope for change is that Green politics gain enough traction due to environmental concerns, that they become the 'new UKIP' in terms of wielding influence disproportionate to their vote share. I've started voting Green in local elections for the last 5 years or so. Made no difference whatsoever, the candidate usually polls in very low triple figures and it barely moves from one election to the next. I've voted LibDem in general elections for decades, for the same reason you recommend - I'm not voting for 'least worst' but for change. Again, it makes sod all difference. I have to ask myself: if I'd voted 'least worst' rather than 'neither of those, thanks' would we be in a better place now?
Click to expand...

The trope that elections are won in the centre ground is not mine, I stole it from the many anti Corbyn posts from a few years ago, posts that regurgitated phrases like ‘ideological purity’, ‘hard left’, ‘Trotsky’, etc, etc, before insisting that Corbyn needed to appeal to the centre ground because that’s where elections were won. Having successfully killed off Corbyn, those same centrists are, without the slightest hint of irony, still kicking his corpse for the politics we have now and seem to have forgotten all about the hallowed centre ground.

I agree that Green is the best hope for the future. Apart from a couple of area, their manifesto is spot on. They will of course get nowhere near electability until the centrists start voting for them, which is of course never going to happen.

While the centre ground is somewhere between a totally corrupt Tory Party and a just as corrupt but in different ways Labour Party, we will stay where we are. Even if we have PR, that will not, on it’s own, change where the centre ground lies. (I was tempted to say where the centre ground lies through it’s teeth, but decided against it!)

I cannot be arsed voting tactically, or for the lesser of two evils any more. I will vote for where I believe the centre ground should be…and that is a long way away from the cesspit we have now.
 
ks.234 said:
I agree that Green is the best hope for the future. Apart from a couple of area, their manifesto is spot on. They will of course get nowhere near electability until the centrists start voting for them, which is of course never going to happen.
Click to expand...

As a counter to @Seeker_UK 's cynicism about PR yielding a "better" type of parliament; The Scottish Greens are currently sharing government in Scotland as a result of a PR-based electoral system. They would be nowhere under a FPTP system but are changing policy in Scotland and dragging the government green-wards.

Even if "PR is not the panacea you seem to think it would be" it has to be a hell of a lot better than FPTP which reduces us to spectators.
 
wulbert said:
As a counter to @Seeker_UK 's cynicism about PR yielding a "better" type of parliament; The Scottish Greens are currently sharing government in Scotland as a result of a PR-based electoral system. They would be nowhere under a FPTP system but are changing policy in Scotland and dragging the government green-wards.
Click to expand...

So the line that PR supporters take, that minor parties can't have undue influence, seems to be false? Good to know. That would bode well for some of the smaller, more extreme parties getting a piece of the action.

wulbert said:
Even if "PR is not the panacea you seem to think it would be" it has to be a hell of a lot better than FPTP which reduces us to spectators.
Click to expand...

If you keep party politics involved and leave it to them to vote on your behalf, PR delivers a representative democracy that will still require coalition and political compromises post-election (like your example above). Like FPTP, it will leave you as spectators.
 
wulbert said:
As a counter to @Seeker_UK 's cynicism about PR yielding a "better" type of parliament; The Scottish Greens are currently sharing government in Scotland as a result of a PR-based electoral system. They would be nowhere under a FPTP system but are changing policy in Scotland and dragging the government green-wards.

Even if "PR is not the panacea you seem to think it would be" it has to be a hell of a lot better than FPTP which reduces us to spectators.
Click to expand...
Yes, you are correct. My cynicism about PR and politics in general is informed by living in the middle of an area that is, and always has been, rabidly Tory, and anything that is not Tory is meet with, not so much hostility, but total bemusement.

PR would be a good idea, but I just don’t think it will gain traction while the mindset that I am surrounded by on a daily basis thrives so well.

Scotland does seem to be a much better place to live for many reasons, would I be allowed in?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top