Politics

[Gemmill 44882]

His is a bizarre interpretation of the perils of PR. Gemmill-ji supports it.

[Makom 0]

If only 12.6% of voters say foreign aid should disappear by voting for a party and that party forms a coalition then 1. The other parties in the coalition have to agree to table the change and 2. Over 50% of parliament has to vote for it and 3 UKIP can't force this red line in coalition negotiations if the majority whip calculates it would fail anyway.

 

We don't have to express on here how PR works, Lord Jenkins wrote a report on it for Blair, there are plenty of ways in which it is more democratic and gives everyone a reason to vote. We can keep constituencies and have a more representative parliament.

 

I'm sorry like but that post of yours was total and utter bollocks and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of how coalitions work. A Tory UKIP coalition was not even likely if we had had PR and there are a significant amount of centrist Tories (the reason they got so many votes) to ensure the nonsense from UKIP got kicked into the long grass.

 

One last thing; PR was invented to avoid extremists and that is exactly what it has done for 70 years across Europe, so no matter how much you cling on to your poorly thought out arguments, a cursory examination of some actual facts should show you how incorrect you are.

 

What on Earth are you talking about?

 

The PR result would have been as as follows:

 

Con 242

Lab 199

UKIP 82

Lib D 51

SNP 31

Green 24

 

Given those numbers, what possible outcome would there be, if not a Tory-UKIP coalition? And in that case, what possible leverage would the Tories have had to be able to refuse to accepting UKIPs main objectives (such as cancelling foreign aid)? It was already Tory policy to have a referendum, so UKIP would obviously be wanting more in return for going into coalition? And a party whip isn't much use if he can't get the party to vote in accordance with the coalition agreement reached, right?

 

And sure, direct translation of votes to seats is not the only system, but if there's a system in the Jenkins report that comes up with any other result in an election like this than giving a disproportionate influence to UKIP, it shouldn't be hard to explain it here using the actual example of this election, right?

 

As for a cursory examination of the facts of 70 years of European history, well, PR wasn't exactly a success for France, was it? It wasn't a surprise that the proportional system which gave the far right and far left 35 seats each, out of 573, was binned after just one election, and they decided to return to a system which favours outright winners, returning the National Front to a position more like UKIP's today (they're actually remarkably similar - UKIP got 1 seat of 650 for 12.6%, while in 2012 the National Front got 2 of 577 for 13.6%, the third by popular vote, by some margin). Other than the far right, is there anyone in France right now desperately calling for a more proportional system?

[ChezGiven 0]

So in that scenario you could have a coalition of Labour Lib Dem and Greens with 300 votes who would only need the SNP to get anything over the line.

 

So what though, the arguments from France are about the difference between having no seats or having a few seats. There are a lot of far right wingers in France and England but not enough to dominate any government with its will as long as the vote is at the levels they are now.

 

As much as I don't like saying it, UKIP deserve more voice and having it would be more democratic. As long as that constituency does not become as significant as one of the major parties, they won't dominate anything as not even half of thee closest allies would support their extreme views.

 

The whips know this so when it come to red line negotiations in the formation of coalitions, they know that they can vote down extreme policies and therefore not accept then as part of any deal. You not getting that is why you aren't following what I'm saying.

[JJ 0]

I'm not sure what Mako is getting at with foreign aid. We've watched 5 years of the Liberal Democrats getting absolutely fingered by the Tories, so how can you assume that UKIP would hold all the power in the negotiations?

 

Plus, not to be pedantic, 242 + 82 = 324. The slimmest working majority possible with Sinn Fein not sending anyone to Westminster.

[NJS 4386]

You also assume that people would vote the same knowing it would lead to seats - one outcome would be more votes for the minor parties but another outcome could be less - people might see voting green or UKIP as a "pointless" but principled protest knowing they aren't going to win their seat - the idea of them having power might make people actually look at their relatively batshit crazy policies.

[RedfernMag 0]

 

 

The PR result would have been as as follows:

 

Con 242

Lab 199

UKIP 82

Lib D 51

SNP 31

Green 24

 

 

If PR existed before the election, those numbers would be different.

[Makom 0]

Yes, obviously people would vote differently if the system was different, but most people are arguing for PR based on how many seats the small parties would have got on a simple vote-seat ratio.

 

Chez, I have no idea what you think I'm not getting from your explanations, but I don't think anyone here can really be in any doubt that if the Tories wanted a coalition and the numbers were as they were above, then UKIP would hold all the cards - they would very easily be able to get some of their other major policies in return for what the Tories want, a majority. As far as I recall, stuff like scrapping foreign aid and HS2 were their other major policies.

 

Of course, I suppose the Tories could say to UKIP, fuck you, we're not going to give you anything except a referendum, it's that or nothing, and therefore they would still say yes. This only goes to show another downside of PR - under FPTP we ended up with a Tory govt. who will hold an EU referendum, yet under the supposedly more democratic system we would still end up with the referendum and a largely Tory govt., but we would also have nutters like Farage sitting in the cabinet and a government totally hamstrung by needing the support of UKIP to pass anything (the other downside to whips not being able to control their party)

 

And whatever it is people think PR does that FPTP doesn't, I'm sure they didn't have in mind producing coalitions like Lib-Lab-SNP-Green, as I think that would be crazy if the goal is to identify the majority view. How anyone could possibly know what their vote was for in that scenario is beyond me - obviously that coalition is left leaning, but there's massive areas of difference in it, both on social policy and environmental policy, not to mention the huge differences on basic constitutional issues (Lib Dems want a federal UK, SNP want independance, Lab are unionist).

 

If the UK had a system which regularly produced govt.s like that, which must be the conclusion if PR meant even more people voted for minor parties, then I can't see how we wouldn't do the same as France and scrap it at the first available opportunity.

[Tom 14011]

[Gemmill 44882]

I hope he assumed the position in his Twitter profile pic as he explained it to them.

[ChezGiven 0]

UKIP wouldn't hold all the cards, am not explaining it a third time. No party would want to form a coalition with them anyway. However if the Tories did they'd have a party opposed to their mindless welfare cuts to keep them in check. For issues like Europe, the majority of Labour and Tories vote the same so that issue goes away.

 

No one sensible can look at 4 million votes and 1 seat and claim it's good for democracy. Apart from you apparently which doesn't make you a contrarian thinker. It's makes you a tit.

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

UKIP wouldn't hold all the cards, am not explaining it a third time. No party would want to form a coalition with them anyway. However if the Tories did they'd have a party opposed to their mindless welfare cuts to keep them in check. For issues like Europe, the majority of Labour and Tories vote the same so that issue goes away.

 

No one sensible can look at 4 million votes and 1 seat and claim it's good for democracy. Apart from you apparently which doesn't make you a contrarian thinker. It's makes you a tit.

Contrarian thinker? Hhhmmm ask him what shape our planet is.

[Rob W 0]

I can't believe that the Labour party would elect either Burnham or Cooper - by the next election it'll have been 10 years since they were part of the last Labour Govt ......... and that wasn't exactly a success

[Christmas Tree 4725]

It's who Len mcclusky wants that matters and luckily for the Tories, Burnham seems to be his favourite.

[Makom 0]

UKIP wouldn't hold all the cards, am not explaining it a third time. No party would want to form a coalition with them anyway. However if the Tories did they'd have a party opposed to their mindless welfare cuts to keep them in check. For issues like Europe, the majority of Labour and Tories vote the same so that issue goes away.

 

No one sensible can look at 4 million votes and 1 seat and claim it's good for democracy. Apart from you apparently which doesn't make you a contrarian thinker. It's makes you a tit.

 

When it comes to rejecting electoral reform, I'm firmly in the majority. Or have you forgotten the outcome of the AV referendum? Not to mention the fact that the parties who have always had PR on their manifestos have done consistently poor in the polls, even after a hung parliament which showed quite well the faults of FPTP - it's only UKIP & SNP whose support rocketed after that election, and it's pretty obvious that had nothing to do with a desire for electoral reform.

 

It frankly doesn't take a genius to figure out where the leverage would have been on the numbers posted previously, when the goal is to form a majority and you have no other policy to offer UKIP except the one you were already going to do, a referendum. I have absolutely no idea what underpins your continuing belief that what I've said would have happened wouldn't have, but if you feel like calling me a tit is likely to open my eyes to your wisdom, so be it.

 

I never said FPTP was sensible, I simply said it's better than PR at keeping out extremists and identifying the largest single party. By seeking to use the example of this election, I'm simply trying to get some expansion from the supporters of PR what they mean when they claim that their proposed system would be more democratic, beyond simplistic notions of fairness that have no real consequence regarding the Westminster system of government.

 

While it might make people feel a little better if 4 million votes translated to more seats for a party like UKIP, according to you, the outcome would be exactly the same - the Tories in power - but with one minor difference, they would be a minority government rather than a small majority one. It could be argued that's a better reflection of the overall will of the people based on that result, but any attempt to claim it's fairer or more democratic to those 4 million UKIP voters would seem to be quite disingenous, since their ability to shape government policy in ways that go against the Tory manifesto would be no different than the outcome under FPTP.

 

As ever, the supposed benefits of PR seem a bit airy fairy, and its supporters simply cannot come up with any practical examples where it makes a difference, at least not a significant one (I've been ignoring the issue of influence on sub-committees etc - but we will soon see from the SNP whether that's a significant factor in our system).

[JJ 0]

It's who Len mcclusky wants that matters and luckily for the Tories, Burnham seems to be his favourite.

Like in 2010 when Miliband got the job?

 

Seems to be a very well put forward point that Miliband got the job because Len McCluskey wanted him.

 

McCluskey of course, didn't become the president of Unite until a year later.

 

For the record McCluskey didn't want Jim Murphy as Scottish Labour leader, and got him anyway. So he's so far got a 0% success rate.

[JJ 0]

Oh and Andy Burnham on the Andrew Marr Show was a poor today. Didn't have any vision of anything when pressed, apart from dancing to the beat of the UKIP drum on immigration. Nothing inspiring or useful from him when pressed about what he'd bring.

[Rayvin 5223]

Oh and Andy Burnham on the Andrew Marr Show was a poor today. Didn't have any vision of anything when pressed, apart from dancing to the beat of the UKIP drum on immigration. Nothing inspiring or useful from him when pressed about what he'd bring.

 

That sounds totally standard for about every politician I've ever seen. Right down to immigration.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Oh and Andy Burnham on the Andrew Marr Show was a poor today. Didn't have any vision of anything when pressed, apart from dancing to the beat of the UKIP drum on immigration. Nothing inspiring or useful from him when pressed about what he'd bring.

He's always been a pretty tepid guy. His heart is in the right place as he definitely cares about the NHS / social care, but he's nowhere near leader material. Strikes me as a very left wing Union man which is fine for him, but not what the party wants if they want power anytime soon.

 

They really should be looking to 2025 which gives 10 years for the cream to rise again.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Bad news. Seems everyone is swerving the TTIP topic, not once has it been discussed by fucking anyone.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/tpp-and-ttip-free-market-trade-deals-approved-by-us-senate-how-americas-news-media-killed-americas-democracy/5449580

[JJ 0]

Bad news. Seems everyone is swerving the TTIP topic, not once has it been discussed by fucking anyone.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/tpp-and-ttip-free-market-trade-deals-approved-by-us-senate-how-americas-news-media-killed-americas-democracy/5449580

I was on the TV talking about it a few months ago. I've got it covered.

 

But aye, it's a piece of shite deal.

[Makom 0]

Anyone complaining about this from the British side needs a serious wakeup call frankly. There's virtually nothing about the environment or workers/consumers rights in Britain (certainly nothing fundamental anyway) that isn't already ultimately controlled by EU directives - if our 'sovereign' government does something that goes against EU treaties, then surprise surprise, it's down to an unelected panel to decide how much of a fine we pay. This is how international trade deals are enforced, why is this a surprise to people in the 21st Century? It's only surprising to America because they have a long history of thinking that they're the best country in the world and thus have never needed to really commit to any international deal that wasn't defence based (and the list of UN Treaties the US has never ratified on ground of 'sovereignty' is fucking horrific).

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894]

Anyone complaining about this from the British side needs a serious wakeup call frankly. There's virtually nothing about the environment or workers/consumers rights in Britain (certainly nothing fundamental anyway) that isn't already ultimately controlled by EU directives - if our 'sovereign' government does something that goes against EU treaties, then surprise surprise, it's down to an unelected panel to decide how much of a fine we pay. This is how international trade deals are enforced, why is this a surprise to people in the 21st Century? It's only surprising to America because they have a long history of thinking that they're the best country in the world and thus have never needed to really commit to any international deal that wasn't defence based (and the list of UN Treaties the US has never ratified on ground of 'sovereignty' is fucking horrific).

 

 

TTIP will allow companies to sue countries for making decisions. The EU does not do that. The EU is made up of either elected MEPs or the council of ministers who are as the name suggests ministers of the elected parliaments of the member states. Like all countries where issues arise the courts decide using legal processes to make that decision.

[JJ 0]

Anyone complaining about this from the British side needs a serious wakeup call frankly. There's virtually nothing about the environment or workers/consumers rights in Britain (certainly nothing fundamental anyway) that isn't already ultimately controlled by EU directives - if our 'sovereign' government does something that goes against EU treaties, then surprise surprise, it's down to an unelected panel to decide how much of a fine we pay. This is how international trade deals are enforced, why is this a surprise to people in the 21st Century? It's only surprising to America because they have a long history of thinking that they're the best country in the world and thus have never needed to really commit to any international deal that wasn't defence based (and the list of UN Treaties the US has never ratified on ground of 'sovereignty' is fucking horrific).

Curious rant. You say people complaining about TTIP need a wake up call, and your reasons have nothing at all to do with TTIP. Just a rant against the EU, which in all fairness wasn't incorrect. Although as I mentioned elsewhere on the board, Britain has the 2nd worst worker rights record in the EU. It's not all the EU's fault that 26 member states of the EU have more workers rights than us.

 

The problem with TTIP is it'll take decisions and power and place even more of it in the hands of corporations. That's why it's an attack on sovereignty. It's a corporate power grab that will result in even more deregulation, even less rights for workers, even more privatisation and even less power for people at the ballot box. If a company wants to dump nuclear waste in the ocean because it's cheaper and the government says no, the ISDS clause will allow them to sue the government (and probably win) because they're infringing on profits.

 

TTIP is not about jobs or safety or regulations, or even trade as it says in the name. It's about money, money, money for the big companies, and any attempts to put people first when there is bad practice will result in a lawsuit.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

 

 

TTIP will allow companies to sue countries for making decisions. The EU does not do that. The EU is made up of either elected MEPs or the council of ministers who are as the name suggests ministers of the elected parliaments of the member states. Like all countries where issues arise the courts decide using legal processes to make that decision.

 

Exactly.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Anyone complaining about this from the British side needs a serious wakeup call frankly. There's virtually nothing about the environment or workers/consumers rights in Britain (certainly nothing fundamental anyway) that isn't already ultimately controlled by EU directives - if our 'sovereign' government does something that goes against EU treaties, then surprise surprise, it's down to an unelected panel to decide how much of a fine we pay. This is how international trade deals are enforced, why is this a surprise to people in the 21st Century? It's only surprising to America because they have a long history of thinking that they're the best country in the world and thus have never needed to really commit to any international deal that wasn't defence based (and the list of UN Treaties the US has never ratified on ground of 'sovereignty' is fucking horrific).

 

 

Absolutely nothing to do with TTIP.