Tories battered

HolgateCorner said:
I disagree, it was for transferable vote wasn’t it? That’s surely a form of PR and could have unlocked the door to further reform down the line.

Just because the Lib Dems didn’t get anything through that time does not mean you should stop trying.

With that approach only the aristocracy and clergy would still be allowed to vote in elections.

Putting that to one side are you against PR or your ‘AV+’ or fairer systems of voting?

Labour should make it a manifesto pledge, it’s time our medieval parliament did what it tells the public to do and modernise itself.
Click to expand...

No it's definitely a form of FPTP. It just moves where the post is. In our current system the post us having a plurality of votes in a constituency. Under AV the post would be getting 50%+1 of the vote.

It's not a proportional system as it would still have all the same problems with wasted votes. It would still be plausible for a party like the Greens or UKIP to pick up millions of votes without getting anything close to a corresponding number of MPs.

If party A got 49% of the vote in every single seat under AV, and party B got 51% of the vote in every seat, parliament would be 100% party B MPs and 0% party A. In any kind of "proportional" system this just wouldn't happen.

I did vote for AV in the 2011 referendum as it happens. And I agree that losing the last referendum shouldn't mean anyone has to stop campaigning.

I'm not arguing against the merits of a proportional voting system. I'm saying don't get your hopes up while Starmer is leader. The only things he's made clear in his time as leader is that 1) he's dishonest. His word doesn't mean much. One months pledge is the next months backtrack. And 2) he's not a progressive. On tax, on policing, on human rights. If he's against internal party democracy for paying Labour members why would he be interested in any increased democracy for the UK.
 
SuperStu said:
No it's definitely a form of FPTP. It just moves where the post is. In our current system the post us having a plurality of votes in a constituency. Under AV the post would be getting 50%+1 of the vote.

It's not a proportional system as it would still have all the same problems with wasted votes. It would still be plausible for a party like the Greens or UKIP to pick up millions of votes without getting anything close to a corresponding number of MPs.

If party A got 49% of the vote in every single seat under AV, and party B got 51% of the vote in every seat, parliament would be 100% party B MPs and 0% party A. In any kind of "proportional" system this just wouldn't happen.

I did vote for AV in the 2011 referendum as it happens. And I agree that losing the last referendum shouldn't mean anyone has to stop campaigning.

I'm not arguing against the merits of a proportional voting system. I'm saying don't get your hopes up while Starmer is leader. The only things he's made clear in his time as leader is that 1) he's dishonest. His word doesn't mean much. One months pledge is the next months backtrack. And 2) he's not a progressive. On tax, on policing, on human rights. If he's against internal party democracy for paying Labour members why would he be interested in any increased democracy for the UK.
Click to expand...
I think what you say is a good thing in the sense that nobody can argue that the electorate have already voted against ‘proper’ PR (hear what you say about the post still existing etc but that AV system surely encourages more representative voting in the marginal seats, so a Labour/Lib Dem vote split for example will not necessarily let the Tory in as it does now?)

But anyway, with regard to Starmer, I’m only giving an opinion on what would seal an election win, I’m not offering opinion on him.

Whatever he is like as a politician, if he delivers the election victory which Corbyn (twice) and others couldn‘t achieve then he will have done his job as leader of the Labour movement.
 
SuperStu said:
So why wasn't that the priority in 2019? What's changed?

I'll answer for you. Boris hasn't changed. Clearly the answer is the Labour leadership has changed. If your list of priorities is

1) not a socialist
2) not Boris
3) whatever else

Then it really shouldn't come as such a big surprise to you when socialists don't gush over your political heroes.
Click to expand...
Everything I listed In the list of Johnsons transgressions happened after 2019.

I see you're going to stick with the personal sleights. I'll wait until you discuss the topic before responding now
 
JackG said:
A charter for unaccountable jobsworths. Far too much power to party machines.
Click to expand...
The current system has exactly the same flaw and the additional disadvantage that the majority of voters have to put up with a government they didn’t vote for.

We need a more democratic system.
 
SmallTown said:
Everything I listed In the list of Johnsons transgressions happened after 2019.

I see you're going to stick with the personal sleights. I'll wait until you discuss the topic before responding now
Click to expand...

False. See my post #130. Proroguing parliament was before, lying to parliament was before, hiding in a fridge was before.

If those weren't enough he'd also: cheated on his wife while she had cancer. Tried to arrange for a journalist to be beaten up. Disappeared millions of pounds on a garden bridge that was never going to happen. Given a load of public money to the American bird he was rattling.

Its an absurd line of argument to pretend anything has substantially changed with regards to Johnsons character between 2019 and now. He's dreadful and he always was.
 
No offence taken. I’m saying (tongue in cheek) that certain posters wield an unhealthy and unfathomable influence on this board. Seemingly free to act as they please without fear of recriminations. A secret clique if you will. I’ll keep winding them out without your permission. Thanks for the attempted lexicology lesson though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top