UK Politics

[steviewevie]

28 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Going back to the original post you shared - perhaps once in awhile you might like to fact check what you post.

Since Starmer has been Labour Leader there have been 21 by-elections.

Labour won 12 and lost 9

Still, don't let facts get in the way of your Starmer love fest

the numbers in that tweet are gains/losses.

[kaosmark2]

Locking the thread for one hour so people will cool down. 

[pink_triangle]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I am not a fan of Labour or the Tories - 75 years of abject failure more or less between them. So as for who leads Labour, I really do not care as the party has lost it's way and is simply becoming a party simialr to Cameron's Tories.

The UK needs change, real change, and not just more years of the same policies that have failed being revamped and retried and failing again.

If I could have my perfect world then the Greens in power but as that will not happen in what is left of my lifetime I hope for a hung parliament so we can get lots of parties workig  together for the UK and not working for their party and it's backers.

I don’t see what you think we would get from a hung parliament. It would probably be working with Lib Dem’s and SNP. I don’t think they would move things in the policy direction you would hope 

[fraybentos1]

4 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I don’t see what you think we would get from a hung parliament. It would probably be working with Lib Dem’s and SNP. I don’t think they would move things in the policy direction you would hope 

vague hope of PR which defo won't happen with a labour majority

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I hope for a hung parliament so we can get lots of parties workig  together for the UK and not working for their party and it's backers.

all will work for their party and try to achieve their manifesto promises, and not have them watered down by other parties.its a bad solution cos no one gets what they voted for, and the arsehole parties will continue to be those arseholes9as happened with 2010 coalition)

[Neil]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

vague hope of PR which defo won't happen with a labour majority

we need a full programme of electoral reform, not bits and pieces forced by circumstance(we'd end up with a fudge).

[fraybentos1]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

we need a full programme of electoral reform, not bits and pieces forced by circumstance(we'd end up with a fudge).

well Labour are never gonna offer it so the only way it would hypothetically happen is if it was forced by circumstances. Labour were recently talking about proper Lords reform (another thing they have back tracked on) so I am sure that could be included in some sort of package.

Changing to STV doesn't even change much in terms of number of MPs etc, it isn't that hard to switch- other countries have done it. Think NZ did a while back.

[kaosmark2]

23 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I don’t see what you think we would get from a hung parliament. It would probably be working with Lib Dem’s and SNP. I don’t think they would move things in the policy direction you would hope 

How do you think people should apply pressure to Labour to actually stand for something though? I see Starmer as about as left/right as Cameron, albeit he won't have a chancellor that's anywhere near as right-wing as Gideon. But I see Starmer enabling, whether passively or actively, abuse against minorities that includes myself and my loved ones, while also having a general set of policies that to me reads as right-of Blair.

[Ozanne]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

Firstly I refer you to my other post about by elections that proves I did not ignore it - oh dear, don't you look silly.

Also I never said that about the Greens - in fact it was you who said it accusing me and others of backing  the Tories by voting Green.

And there you go alienating the very people Labour needs to vote for them by pathetic childish acusations of being Tory Enablers.

There is one person on here who does more harm to the Labour cause and that is you. It is you as you refuse to accept anything other than they are perfect and use selective statistics that 'prove' your point.

This forum became the Ozanne and Stevie thread and any newcomers get attacked - since I limited my posts I watched and saw you do it to others.

You are nasty little bullies who think this place is theirs and only their views count and when anyone dares to stand up to you the insults fly.

You and the Fish man really are no different - but you cannot see that.
 

Sorry for earlier on, I got a bit carried away. 

[Ozanne]

22 minutes ago, Neil said:

we need a full programme of electoral reform, not bits and pieces forced by circumstance(we'd end up with a fudge).

I think we might get some of PR at the end of Labours 2nd term if they get a majority at the next election. It would bring some of the green voters on side and then protect against a Tory majority. 

[mattiloy]

29 minutes ago, Neil said:

all will work for their party and try to achieve their manifesto promises, and not have them watered down by other parties.its a bad solution cos no one gets what they voted for, and the arsehole parties will continue to be those arseholes9as happened with 2010 coalition)

Nobody gets what they vote for now.

The extreme apathy is largely caused by fptp.

Voters are expected to make all the compromise and vote for either one of the major parties that they hate least.

So you end up with low turnout where a unified fringe can end up dominating the agenda. As happens now.

Brexit would not have happened under PR.

[mattiloy]

14 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think we might get some of PR at the end of Labours 2nd term if they get a majority at the next election. It would bring some of the green voters on side and then protect against a Tory majority. 

This wont happen. Starmer is a right wing authoritarian, he has no interest in advancing democracy or progressive politics.

[fraybentos1]

23 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I think we might get some of PR at the end of Labours 2nd term if they get a majority at the next election. It would bring some of the green voters on side and then protect against a Tory majority. 

This is just naivety tbh. Labour are always gonna flirt with it when the tories have been in power for a decade then the will abandon it as soon as they win a majority. 

[Nobody Interesting]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

the numbers in that tweet are gains/losses.

As I said, selective statistics. To get the true and complete picture you have to include all by elections

[Ozanne]

7 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

This wont happen. Starmer is a right wing authoritarian, he has no interest in advancing democracy or progressive politics.

It probably won’t, history indicates it won’t but if he feels he needs those votes for the following election then it’s a possibility. 

[Nobody Interesting]

56 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I don’t see what you think we would get from a hung parliament. It would probably be working with Lib Dem’s and SNP. I don’t think they would move things in the policy direction you would hope 

What I hope we might get is change - cos as I said, 75 years and counting of blue then red and repeat and look where we are. Something needs to change and a hung parliament is currently the best we can hope for to get anything to change, even a little.

[Nobody Interesting]

27 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Sorry for earlier on, I got a bit carried away. 

Yes you did - and not the first time and not only against me.

Apology accepted but please make it the last time you play those sort of cards.

[Ozanne]

A hung-Parliament runs the risk of the government collapsing and allowing the Tories back in any following election. The best thing for the country would be for Labour to win a majority, sort the issues facing the country and then at the end of the 2nd term enact PR. We can’t run the risk of the Tories getting back in considering how they’ve gutted the country. 

[steviewevie]

9 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

As I said, selective statistics. To get the true and complete picture you have to include all by elections

Maybe selective, but in terms of gains/losses still something..and labour under starmer have done well in that respect. They have won seats from Tories/SNP.

[Nobody Interesting]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Maybe selective, but in terms of gains/losses still something..and labour under starmer have done well in that respect. They have won seats from Tories/SNP.

If by election gains mean success in GE then we have had Lib Dem governments for decades.

[steviewevie]

Not convinced with PR. Starting to think we need less democracy not more 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If by election gains mean success in GE then we have had Lib Dem governments for decades.

Ok so now you're just downplaying by election results as meaningless.

[steviewevie]

By elections can be kind of meaningless in terms of general election I guess, mid term and all that. But we're not really mid term now 

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

A hung-Parliament runs the risk of the government collapsing and allowing the Tories back in any following election. The best thing for the country would be for Labour to win a majority, sort the issues facing the country and then at the end of the 2nd term enact PR. We can’t run the risk of the Tories getting back in considering how they’ve gutted the country. 

I'd say if Labour have a single digit majority, or are single digits off a majority, then all their sensible policies that will help sort the country out will pass anyway, and it'll be an important check on Labour as well as effectively making PR a requirement of a 2nd-term manifesto.

[kaosmark2]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

By elections can be kind of meaningless in terms of general election I guess, mid term and all that. But we're not really mid term now 

I'd mostly say that by-elections can be used to try and read trends about similar seats, not about full GE results.