greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,215
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Jan 4, 2021 12:42:23 GMT
Its not like Wimbledon is even that far from his old seat, either. We had an excellent candidate in Wimbledon who tbh I'd have much rather see in the HoC that Sam Gyimah. He should have stood in his old seat. And he would likely have achieved a higher percentage of the vote in East Surrey given that it still had a strong Remain vote and tactical voting would not have been an issue there by any means.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 12:50:40 GMT
How many more times do Labour have to lose to a Tory majority on a minority vote to recognise that FPTP no longer benefits anyone but the Tories?
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 4, 2021 12:55:25 GMT
I agree Mike. Talk of a Labour majority - in the system/society/mechanisms we operate under in today's world is fanciful. Most realistic option for 2024 is a "grand anti-Tory alliance" IMO. For a one-off election parties must stand down in 100 or so target seats to ensure that Labour emerges as largest party but also that LD + other parties see their ranks swollen too. It must be linked directly to election reform and a fairer voting system. Once some form of PR is in place, the parties can go back to their old tribal loyalties and voters can then vote positively for the party they support rather than having to tactically vote against the party they least support which is very much a negative vote. No more of this "vote Lib Dem, get Labour" nonsense; instead it would be "vote Lib Dem, get Lib Dem" [insert party of choice into that hackneyed phrase, as all sides played it at some time]. Failure to do so, with the way the balance of power currently exists, means a likely continuation of the theme of 40 years of Tory-rule in the next 50 years, with the only exceptions being periods where the non-Tory party/coalition is actively supported by the owners of The Sun. The sooner Labour realise this the better... and interesting article about this is here...
Or, alternatively, we could crush the LibDems under our heels like the cockroaches they are and not have centre-left votes flowing to a party that instinctively wants to prop up a right-wing government? Unless we're talking about vile parties like the BNP or Ltd Companies set up by grifters, I would like to think of UK politics as a broad church and we shouldnt be "crushing" other parties out of existence. Sounds like you want a 2-party system like they have in the USA?
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 13:01:22 GMT
How many more times do Labour have to lose to a Tory majority on a minority vote to recognise that FPTP no longer benefits anyone but the Tories? Not true in 1997, 2001 and 2005.Even in 1992 a 7.6% GB lead only delivered a 21 Tory majority.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 13:01:58 GMT
Or, alternatively, we could crush the LibDems under our heels like the cockroaches they are and not have centre-left votes flowing to a party that instinctively wants to prop up a right-wing government? Unless we're talking about vile parties like the BNP or Ltd Companies set up by grifters, I would like to think of UK politics as a broad church and we shouldnt be "crushing" other parties out of existence. Sounds like you want a 2-party system like they have in the USA? I don;t see how two parties alone can possible represent the very wide range of views which exist, and deserve to have representation.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 13:05:10 GMT
How many more times do Labour have to lose to a Tory majority on a minority vote to recognise that FPTP no longer benefits anyone but the Tories? Not true in 1997, 2001 and 2005.Even in 1992 a 7.6% GB lead only delivered a 21 Tory majority. as I said 'no longer'..... the trend towards Labour's voter distribution causing them problems since then is obvious. I think those who do not want change believe that this can or will alter, but this does need to be considered seriously and the complacency in particular on the right of the Labour party is remarkable, I think they believe all they have to do is wait and votes will inevitably flow back towards Labour where they require them.
|
|
European Lefty
Labour
Can be bribed with salted liquorice
Posts: 5,505
|
Post by European Lefty on Jan 4, 2021 13:13:07 GMT
Or, alternatively, we could crush the LibDems under our heels like the cockroaches they are and not have centre-left votes flowing to a party that instinctively wants to prop up a right-wing government? Unless we're talking about vile parties like the BNP or Ltd Companies set up by grifters, I would like to think of UK politics as a broad church and we shouldnt be "crushing" other parties out of existence. Sounds like you want a 2-party system like they have in the USA? Not at all, I just don't want a system that includes the LibDems. The few councillors thy have who are worth keeping (there's at least one near me) would survive as independents. Otherwise they're nothing but deceitful and dishonest and their demise as a party would be good for British politics
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 13:16:09 GMT
Not true in 1997, 2001 and 2005.Even in 1992 a 7.6% GB lead only delivered a 21 Tory majority. as I said 'no longer'..... the trend towards Labour's voter distribution causing them problems since then is obvious. I think those who do not want change believe that this can or will alter, but this does need to be considered seriously and the complacency in particular on the right of the Labour party is remarkable, I think they believe all they have to do is wait and votes will inevitably flow back towards Labour where they require them. If Labour can recover in Scotland, FPTP will favour the party again. That may yet happen.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 13:18:09 GMT
as I said 'no longer'..... the trend towards Labour's voter distribution causing them problems since then is obvious. I think those who do not want change believe that this can or will alter, but this does need to be considered seriously and the complacency in particular on the right of the Labour party is remarkable, I think they believe all they have to do is wait and votes will inevitably flow back towards Labour where they require them. If Labour can recover in Scotland, FPTP will favour the party again. That may yet happen. But thats not going to happen this side of IndyRef2, if at all. Even then, the Conservatives are much stronger then they once were in the Borders and Ayrshire, for example.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Jan 4, 2021 13:18:43 GMT
How many more times do Labour have to lose to a Tory majority on a minority vote to recognise that FPTP no longer benefits anyone but the Tories? Not true in 1997, 2001 and 2005.Even in 1992 a 7.6% GB lead only delivered a 21 Tory majority. The fact that FPTP also over-inflated Labour's support in the past isnt an argument in favour of FPTP. If anything, it's an argument against it. In the appropriate circumstances, as Mike has mentioned re voter distribution etc, either party can win large majorities on well below 50% support. I simply dont understand the logic of how anyone could think that is either fair or a true representation of the voter's wishes.
Of course, I can see the party political case for it, for those strongly wedded to either the Tory or Labour cause, but there is no non-partisan, rational justification for it.
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jan 4, 2021 13:18:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 13:21:31 GMT
Labour would lose my vote if it went for PR. I strongly support AV.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 13:21:40 GMT
Unless we're talking about vile parties like the BNP or Ltd Companies set up by grifters, I would like to think of UK politics as a broad church and we shouldnt be "crushing" other parties out of existence. Sounds like you want a 2-party system like they have in the USA? Not at all, I just don't want a system that includes the LibDems. The few councillors thy have who are worth keeping (there's at least one near me) would survive as independents. Otherwise they're nothing but deceitful and dishonest and their demise as a party would be good for British politics Under FPTP, Labour require an outlet for soft Tories who can't bring themselves to vote Labour. Often that has been the LibDems, and if they didn't exist, there would need to be an eqwuivalent I think there is actually more of a question as to whether the LibDems would exist in the same way in a more proportional system, as there may not be a need for such a role.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 13:22:55 GMT
Labour would lose my vote if it went for PR. I strongly support AV. Worse than FPTP. I voted against it when on offer and I've always been an electoral reformer
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 13:28:54 GMT
If Labour can recover in Scotland, FPTP will favour the party again. That may yet happen. But thats not going to happen this side of IndyRef2, if at all. Even then, the Conservatives are much stronger then they once were in the Borders and Ayrshire, for example. Not necessarily so. I actually agree with Johnson in refusing a further Referendum in the near term. It is an Ultra Vires issue re-Holyrood anyway and commitments made by parties seeking election to that body are neither here nor there. It is rather akin to a party seeking control of a County Council pledging to replace the Council Tax.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 13:31:52 GMT
Labour would lose my vote if it went for PR. I strongly support AV. Worse than FPTP. I voted against it when on offer and I've always been an electoral reformer It is the Australian system and I much prefer it.De Facto it existed in much of the UK back in the 1950s when most seats saw straight fights between Tory and Labour.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 13:36:17 GMT
But thats not going to happen this side of IndyRef2, if at all. Even then, the Conservatives are much stronger then they once were in the Borders and Ayrshire, for example. Not necessarily so. I actually agree with Johnson in refusing a further Referendum in the near term. It is an Ultra Vires issue re-Holyrood anyway and commitments made by parties seeking election to that body are neither here nor there. It is rather akin to a party seeking control of a County Council pledging to replace the Council Tax. That's not the point. Until there is a further referendum, the SNP will clean up, because the first referendum was framed within the context of being part of the EU. So you can disagree with it all you want, but in doing so, Labour won't win any seats from the SNP because so many of their potential voters back independence and think there should be a further referendum. I don;t have strong viuews either way, but what makes you think Labour can recover without a decision being made on the prevailing issue (which is even determining local election outcomes)
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 13:37:19 GMT
Worse than FPTP. I voted against it when on offer and I've always been an electoral reformer It is the Australian system and I much prefer it.De Facto it existed in much of the UK back in the 1950s when most seats saw straight fights between Tory and Labour. And Australia has all the problems of a two party system....they have compulsory voting of course, but their attitude to politicians makes ours look positive.
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 4, 2021 13:38:27 GMT
Not necessarily so. I actually agree with Johnson in refusing a further Referendum in the near term. It is an Ultra Vires issue re-Holyrood anyway and commitments made by parties seeking election to that body are neither here nor there. It is rather akin to a party seeking control of a County Council pledging to replace the Council Tax. That's not the point. Until there is a further referendum, the SNP will clean up, because the first referendum was framed within the context of being part of the EU. So you can disagree with it all you want, but in doing so, Labour won't win any seats from the SNP because so many of their potential voters back independence and think there should be a further referendum. I don;t have strong viuews either way, but what makes you think Labour can recover without a decision being made on the prevailing issue (which is even determining local election outcomes) In 2017 Labour went from 1 to 7 seats in Scotland under Corbyn. I see no reason why Starmer cannot better that.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jan 4, 2021 14:17:18 GMT
That's not the point. Until there is a further referendum, the SNP will clean up, because the first referendum was framed within the context of being part of the EU. So you can disagree with it all you want, but in doing so, Labour won't win any seats from the SNP because so many of their potential voters back independence and think there should be a further referendum. I don;t have strong viuews either way, but what makes you think Labour can recover without a decision being made on the prevailing issue (which is even determining local election outcomes) In 2017 Labour went from 1 to 7 seats in Scotland under Corbyn. I see no reason why Starmer cannot better that. I can. See above.
|
|