Labour conference votes for PR manifesto commitment at next GE

Nano said:
You need to realise that there is a difference between the current Tory government and a Tory government like Cameron's. Cameron could be the Labour leader and policies would be no different to Starmer's. So yes, any Labour is better than current Tory but don't pretend centrist Labour is something that anyone that actually wants genuine change to be excited about.
Click to expand...
Cameron and starmer share an ideology. If you are serious you are talking through emotional bias. Cameron who introduced austerity, that Cameron?

I can't be bothered giving any more examples and I shouldn't need too to demonstrate the stupidity of your remark.
 
SuperStu said:
Starmer's said he won't reverse brexit. And he's refused to say whether he'd reverse the tax breaks for the rich in last weeks budget.

So if you mean trust Starmer on his words, you're trusting him that he won't change these things.

If you're saying trust that Starmer will change these things regardless of what he says, then you're basically taking his untrustworthyness as a selling point.
Click to expand...
What? He had said categorically that he will reverse the removal of the 40% top rate of tax.
 
Laughing said:
Cameron and starmer share an ideology. If you are serious you are talking through emotional bias. Cameron who introduced austerity, that Cameron?

I can't be bothered giving any more examples and I shouldn't need too to demonstrate the stupidity of your remark.
Click to expand...
Milliband at the time had austerity on the agenda. Not as heavy as Cameron's but it was in there. Austerity was "of the time" though. Milliband would never have introduced austerity if he was starting from scratch but he had to compete with Cameron. Starmer is less left than Milliband.

Point is that the win at all costs mentality where you move to where the votes are instead of being principled and trying to move the voters to you ends up with offering centre right policies so does it matter what party you belong to if you are doing the same thing?

I don't believe that a Starmer and Cameron share an ideology. I'd probably say neither of them are particularly ideological. They both want power but are mostly unprincipled in how they get there.
 
Nano said:
Milliband at the time had austerity on the agenda. Not as heavy as Cameron's but it was in there. Austerity was "of the time" though. Milliband would never have introduced austerity if he was starting from scratch but he had to compete with Cameron. Starmer is less left than Milliband.

Point is that the win at all costs mentality where you move to where the votes are instead of being principled and trying to move the voters to you ends up with offering centre right policies so does it matter what party you belong to if you are doing the same thing?

I don't believe that a Starmer and Cameron share an ideology. I'd probably say neither of them are particularly ideological. They both want power but are mostly unprincipled in how they get there.
Click to expand...
Cast your ballot as you see fit, I can't be bothered arguing with someone who is equating starmer with the tories.
 
SuperStu said:
Starmer's said he won't reverse brexit. And he's refused to say whether he'd reverse the tax breaks for the rich in last weeks budget.
Click to expand...

You love doing this Stu - just making things up to suit your Starmer hatred.

Starmer stated on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that Labour would put the top rate of tax back up to 45%. There was no hesitation and he strongly disagreed with reducing it. This stance has been reiterated many times in the news over the last few days.

If you are going to make arguments against Starmer at least don't tell lies.
 
MolteniArcore said:
You love doing this Stu - just making things up to suit your Starmer hatred.

Starmer stated on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that Labour would put the top rate of tax back up to 45%. There was no hesitation and he strongly disagreed with reducing it. This stance has been reiterated many times in the news over the last few days.

If you are going to make arguments against Starmer at least don't tell lies.
Click to expand...
And yet I've seen it said many times on here that he won't, it's mad.
 
MolteniArcore said:
You love doing this Stu - just making things up to suit your Starmer hatred.

Starmer stated on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that Labour would put the top rate of tax back up to 45%. There was no hesitation and he strongly disagreed with reducing it. This stance has been reiterated many times in the news over the last few days.

If you are going to make arguments against Starmer at least don't tell lies.
Click to expand...

Poor form that MA. I haven't watched Kuenssbergs show. Starmer DID refuse to commit to reversing the 45% tax break last week when the budget was read out. If it's another thing Starmer's flip flopped on then that's great (for now). Obviously he's very unreliable so who's to say he won't change his mind again later on?

news.sky.com

Sir Keir warns mini-budget 'does nothing' for working people - but doesn't say if he would reverse tax cuts

Labour's leaders says his party's conference "is our chance to set out the alternative, to make our case for an economy that works for working people, growth for everyone everywhere, wherever they are".
news.sky.com news.sky.com

"As for what we'll do in government, no sensible opposition gets into income tax specifics this far out from an election"

So there you go MA. Made up? Lies? Completely baseless accusation. Letting yourself down.
 
SuperStu said:
Poor form that MA. I haven't watched Kuenssbergs show. Starmer DID refuse to commit to reversing the 45% tax break last week when the budget was read out. If it's another thing Starmer's flip flopped on then that's great (for now). Obviously he's very unreliable so who's to say he won't change his mind again later on?
Click to expand...

It's been all over the news / media Stu. No need to double down on it - that is poor form.

You aren't an idiot, you must watch the news and keep abreast of current affairs. I refuse to believe that on the week of Labour Conference where Labour is in the news daily you have no idea what is being discussed. You know about PR after all.

Anyway, PR good. At least we agree on that.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I agree. It can't be a manifesto pledge. Maybe though they could consider a referendum on it as a way to pacify the membership.
Click to expand...
I would like to see pr, not sure a referendum would see it pass though. It would depend on the hoards who don't understand it I would guess.
 
Laughing said:
I would like to see pr, not sure a referendum would see it pass though. It would depend on the hoards who don't understand it I would guess.
Click to expand...

That's the problem - people won't understand it. And I no longer trust the electorate to understand much after 12 years of Tory and a Brexit ref.
 
MolteniArcore said:
It's been all over the news / media Stu. No need to double down on it - that is poor form.

You aren't an idiot, you must watch the news and keep abreast of current affairs. I refuse to believe that on the week of Labour Conference where Labour is in the news daily you have no idea what is being discussed. You know about PR after all.

Anyway, PR good. At least we agree on that.
Click to expand...

MA if Starmer says one thing on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, then changes what hes saying on Sunday, you could give people the benefit of the doubt that they may not have seen that on Monday 🤣 anyway I'm off to listen to Craig David songs now.
 
SuperStu said:
MA if Starmer says one thing on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, then changes what hes saying on Sunday, you could give people the benefit of the doubt that they may not have seen that on Monday 🤣 anyway I'm off to listen to Craig David songs now.
Click to expand...

It was in Rachel Reeves speech yesterday. Enjoy your tunes... is it a different listening experience with selective hearing? You must miss some lines :ROFLMAO:
 
The vote in the room for PR to be in Manifesto was described as pretty overwhelming. He is of course free to disregard the vote. If he does, he’s not reading the room. There would be consequences ignoring a vote of that size.
 
Ingleby_Flash said:
Labour need to remember that a form of PR won them the wrong Milliband. Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...
How many times do we have to do over the same ground?

Any electoral system, regardless of its complexities, that results in the election of one candidate (i.e the ‘winner’) CANNOT be a form of proportional representation. It is by definition a winner-takes-all system.

There are two types of electoral system: winner-takes-all or proportional representation. Examples of winner-takes-all include FPTP but also include Alternative Vote and the Labour electoral college to which you refer.

Proportional systems attempt to allocate multiple seats to parties in some form of proportion to their overall proportion of votes received. This necessitates a list of candidates from each party who are elected based upon a combination of their party’s proportion of votes and their position on the list. Examples of PR include Single Transferable Vote and the d’Hondt method.

I think (maybe hope) that Starmer is boxing clever on the issue of electoral reform. Whenever I’ve heard him interviewed about it he says that he agrees there’s a need, but it’s not a priority, disagrees with PR and thinks it’s important to maintain the constituency link with MPs. That would rule out PR systems but does leave the door open for something like Alternative Vote instead of FPTP.
 
“That would rule out PR systems but does leave the door open for something like Alternative Vote instead of FPTP.”

Which did indeed get us the wrong Milliband
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top