SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
After your comment on the remembrance thread i think you need to have a good look at yourself and stop trying to debate with me, tosser
General Election 2019 thread (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Philosoraptor
- Start date
After your comment on the remembrance thread i think you need to have a good look at yourself and stop trying to debate with me, tosser
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
The Labour line for soft Brexit has been the same since day one. I think the second ref but is more recent since conference but not sure.
My point was Greens have the same policy as Labour and have been equally forward in pushing compromise and not Remain and everyone else can get fucked.
But they aren’t slagged off as “secret Brexiters” by the Lib Dem’s and other FBPEers because they’re cuddly.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Oh shit, were you trying to debate? I thought we were just shitposting at each other.
What’s wrong snowflake? Don’t like your hypocrisy pointing out? Cry more.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
As I've said before we need both. Having a directly accountable MP is a good thing, but it does on the whole lead to a potential scenario where the biggest % of vote doesn't get into govt.
No constituences will see everywhere north of Watford forgotten apart from during election times and if you had a national vote with a constituency MP foisted on you by party grandees they're unlikely to be that bothered, and the area may get one from a party that doesn't reflect the way it voted. Let's say Brexit get 5% of the vote and thus 5% of MP's. You could end up being given a Brexit MP in an area that vote remain. It would be anarchy.
So, as I've said. One election - elect two houses. FPTP on a local level for a candidate gets them elected as a constituency MP and a place in the Lower House (Commons). PV on a national basis to choose the Upper House (Lords). Parties get to chose who sits in the seats they've won.
lifeskyblue
Well-Known Member
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Bringing up politics on a remembrance thread to have a sly dig, do you not have any respect?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I can’t find a system I like TBH. I like yours but worry about two elected chambers with no actual expertise in.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You think war has nothing to do with politics?
You’re a virtue signaller. Wearing the clothes of dead soldiers to protect yourself. Don’t talk to me about respect you tiny little man.
If you saw the point that demanding our leaders start more wars on Armistice Day wasn’t respectful and saw a personal dig maybe that says a lot more about you that you’d like to admit.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
It wasn't fucking necessary was it!!!!!!! I made that thread in regards to respect and a beautifully made video to which you then commented something truly pathetic
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Again. Maybe you think the best way to respect those who fight for our freedom is cheesy social media pieces. I’d rather we learned the larger lesson.
Now fuck all the way off. That’s not banter. I actually think you’re a c**t. Man says he doesn’t think we are remembering, I agree and justify it. You are the one that made it about party politics and here you are doing it again. Hypocritical arse that you are.
Last edited:
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It's a problem, but it's not like we get that now in the Lords or Commons. I feel sure there is an even better way than mine somewhere but in the meantime I think mine would be an incremental improvement and might just help someone down the line have that Eureka moment to improve on it.
Sadly those that could actually put it into place aren't interested.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
You’ll never get voting reform. By definition whoever has the power to change the system benefits from it as it is. Also the Brexit problem if there’s a majority for change but not one specific change.
I actually like the Lords. Not the actual Lords or the selection process, but the overall idea is good IMO.
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Can you elaborate on what specifically you think is good about the idea of the Lords?
I like the fact there is a second chamber but as for the selection it all seems a bit arbitrary and 'jobs for the boys/girls'. It's not really accountable and is becoming bloated with every change of government as each party elects its own Lords to swing power in the chamber back to them. I think there's over 1000 of them now.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
At the moment it does look like this General Election is going to based around our position with Europe for the electorate.
I think Coventry South will turn Conservative, partly because of the European question but mainly because of the Labour candidate and her previous opinions on stuff, and less about Labour policy.
I would also say that a future referendum the Labour Party is offering would be a choice between remain, and remain. This will also put off many Labour voters.
I still see many seats lost for Labour in city strongholds, especially in the North because of this.
I think Coventry South will turn Conservative, partly because of the European question but mainly because of the Labour candidate and her previous opinions on stuff, and less about Labour policy.
I would also say that a future referendum the Labour Party is offering would be a choice between remain, and remain. This will also put off many Labour voters.
I still see many seats lost for Labour in city strongholds, especially in the North because of this.
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I like the fact that they are in theory learned and experienced law makers and experts who can take a wider view than craven vote grubbing like the commons.
In an ideal world I’d see various industries get a nomination and limit the political parties to maybe one a year or something. I’d have term limits and controls on each type of Lord. But if it could be done I think MPs really need subject experts and experienced people to look over legislation.
My concern with a party list system like PR is that you end up with party cronies who aren’t directly accountable and still have no actual expert knowledge in the things they legislate on.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Would Labours deal really make people think it was remain vs remain?? I know they want a softer brexit but would it really be looked upon as remain?
Astute
Well-Known Member
Is that right though?
Abbott messes up again. You agree with this. Swindon has said she would put her plans to the country.....then ignore what she says and stops Brexit. Sturgeon....It is all about her and not what the Scottish people want.
Philosoraptor
Well-Known Member
The second chamber is very important.
It should act as a safety net so bad ideas are chucked out before they are made law.
The idea to go to one chamber with a shortened period for Parliament before reselections just isn't workable, in my opinion.
It means bad ideas can still be forced through Parliament by the majority party even with the shortened time limit for sitting MPs.
I think the question here is to how to change the second chamber to make it more democratically electable.
Of course, this has its problems as well.
Originally in America, when they were sorting out their Constitution after the War of Independence, they completely ripped off the ideas of John Locke in setting up their Government. They, however, made a few changes by making the second chamber electable.
This has been shown, with the Government shutdowns in America, not really to be a viable idea. Seems it would make paralysis to both chambers in making laws, a lot more easier.
I think the solution here may be not to let people sit in the second chamber who are in the same political party's as the first chamber.
Lots of different ideas here.
Bicameralism - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
Not dismissive but know what you mean.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Labour took ages to come out with their idea on what should happen. Corbyn dithered for ages.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Surely @shmmeee will agree that Corbyn's brexit policy has been crazy, been a disaster which has lost them voters
Astute
Well-Known Member
Nothing wrong with the policy. Should have made them public well before they were though.
The two policies that would be wrong are leaving without an agreement and doing a Lib Dems and totally ignoring the electorate. The rest is down to personal circumstances and beliefs.
The biggest problem is having a bunch of idiots deciding our futures.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
But didn't they say they would honour the referendum in the last manifesto.... this is the problem with labour that will piss off leave voters for them to now be saying it will go to a public vote
Astute
Well-Known Member
We don't know what Labour will do. But doing something different to what they said they would do in 2017 doesn't make it wrong. But the way they have gone about it should have been a lot better.
Believe it or not but I am a remainer. Leaving the EU would cause me serious problems. It is hard enough as it is. But I try to respect the referendum result. Saying that I don't think we should have been given the choice like we were. We did not get enough time to work things out for ourselves.
The EU is crooked. But that doesn't mean that we are better off out of the EU. We need the voice that questions what is going on.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Fair points! The last 3 years have been a disaster tbh in terms of wasting time and negotiations, all mp's have behaved in a ridiculous way (on both sides)
Last edited:
Astute
Well-Known Member
Exactly. What has happened is it has focused people on the way things are done. This includes in the EU as well as in the UK. There is so much wrong with both.
But the problem is that both systems are wrong yet there is nothing we can do about it. They make their own rules. We be to abide by them.
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
What do you think will happen in the election?? Can you honestly see a majority for either party?
Grendel
Well-Known Member
The pure maths make it virtually impossible for labour as I assume it’s not going to be able to recover its position in Scotland
Conservatives have a chance. They’d have to hold most of the seats out of Scotland (those will go) and make the ground lost in Scotland and more. In effect they have 298 and 13 in Scotland so 285 in reality but the defector sears will go back to them.
They need 320 it’s a big ask
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I also like the theory of experience but the main way they get that experience is by following party lines so they keep getting selected in easy-win seats so when they eventually move up to the Lords they're just a party stooge. So it is still far too party politics and cronies in the upper chamber IMO.
When they do white papers etc they do often bring in experts to work on it (tsars) but the problem is the government can just ignore their advice despite the evidence and knowledge they bring based on their own dogma. Remember the drug tsar who said drugs should be legalised, taxed etc. Very sensible, evidence based, policy recommendation. But that didn't fit in with the 'War on Drugs' mantra so they just tried to discredit him and ignored his proposals.
It is the bit of my plan that I would like to improve - how to get actual expertise in the areas that are being legislated on rather than party politics. Personally I think it should be you can't chair a committee/be Minister/Secretary unless you have expertise in the area it covers but then those being chosen will still be party affiliated and thus at risk of following the party line. Ccan you imagine a company employing someone with no background in finance and economics as their Finance Executive? But we do it all the time with the Chancellor as the job is seen as a 'reward' for loyalty to the PM and get their name in the hat as a potential successor.
Even moving to a grandee/crony list on a PV vote for the Lords would be quite a stretch to get politicians to agree to as it reduces their power. To do it so they are largely removed in favour of actual expertise, despite how sensible that would be, would be way too much for them to agree to from where we are now. It may only be gradual erosion but it may undermine the cliff to lead to a more drastic collapse later.
Last edited:
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
Will the conservatives be able to do anything in Scotland?? Ruth Davidson gone might be a big blow so will be interesting to see
Brexit party still might have a huge part to play in getting the conservatives over the line! Although Boris is confident he'll be able to win enough
Astute
Well-Known Member
Only the Tories can get a majority. That is unless something big happens before the election. There is only the Tories and Farage after leaving. Even the Welsh who voted leave have a party who wants to remain. So the remain vote is spread out.
But if the vote isn't about leave or remain who in their right mind would vote for Boris as PM? The problem is that there isn't a leader worth voting for personally. I fear for our short term future. This is whoever wins and in or out of the EU.
Astute
Well-Known Member
Did you see how many voted remain in Scotland?
SkyBlueDom26
Well-Known Member
62% so conservatives probably won't be shown much love..
Sturgeon doesn't help though, she is anti everything unless it includes Scotland in it
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
I agree totally about the safety net and it stopping bad ideas, but in reality it has rarely done that and the few times it has has seen the PM and others get in a huff about "unelected" "overreach" etc and threaten HoL overhaul. The Commons seem to see the Lords as an extension of the Queen - ceremonial and are tolerated as long as they just rubber stamp. The party that controls parliament will bring in new Lords to give them that party effective control over both houses anyway.
If elected in one vote it doesn't necessarily result in a party getting control of both houses (in fact it makes it highly likely the upper house would always be hung, because rarely does one party get over 50% of the overall vote and thus force a move away from the tribalism and into more moderate co-operation and in theory more considered and better legislation). But lets say a party wins 350 seats and so controls the Commons but their rival gets 52% of the popular vote - they would control the Lords. It would reflect the will of the people, although as you say there is the fear of deadlock in such a situation but as I say I think the likelihood of such a scenario is quite low as we have more than a two-party system (and would hopefully stay that way).
Under the current system the party in charge of the Commons can effectively control the Lords anyway by making new Lords sympathetic to them and they are likely to be there for life.
As you can tell from above I'm hugely in favour of an elected upper chamber and although I like the idea of those in the second chamber not in the same parties as the first, but in reality chances are those people/parties will affiliate themselves with parties in the Commons and effectively be an extension of that party. For example the Conservative and Unionist Party could 'split' and put Conservatives in one house and Unionists in the other. Labour and Co-Operative Party could put Labour in one, Co-Op in the other. Or like companies they could form a new body, say the ConservaTories or LayBore, that was legally a separate entity yet clearly controlled by the other
In a worse case scenario is does leave it open to corruption and bribery.
So as I say above, baby steps to erode the power. Much of the operation would continue as is with the Lords, but it would bring in a defined number of Lords rather than the ever-increasing chamber it has become, term limits on them and make the overall make-up elected by the public. It's not ideal, but it's a start.
Last edited: