Do you want to discuss boring politics? (119 Viewers)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Likewise with Welsh Labour too. Which is my logic when I say anyone expecting big changes from an incoming Labour government will be disappointed by the next election.

Totally agree that the Tories absolutely deserve to kicked out of government, the alternative just isn’t going to be much better in my view.

Nobody is expecting big changes which is why they are already disappointed. Except for shmmeee and PVA of course

 

---

[PVA]

Nobody is expecting big changes which is why they are already disappointed. Except for shmmeee and PVA of course

I'm not expecting any particular individual seismic changes, but I'm expecting improvements on virtually every metric which combined will make a big difference and make everyone's lives better than under a Tory government.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

I'm not expecting any particular individual seismic changes, but I'm expecting improvements on virtually every metric which combined will make a big difference and make everyone's lives better than under a Tory government.

Bookmarked

 

[torchomatic]

Bookmarked

It's almost like people want Labour to fail just because of Starmer.

 

[PVA]

Bookmarked

You don't think things will improve under Labour?

 

[Sick Boy]

You don't think things will improve under Tory-lite?

It’ll be pretty much a continuation of the same state of affairs but with less dodgy deals going on.

 

[Ian1779]

I'm not expecting any particular individual seismic changes, but I'm expecting improvements on virtually every metric which combined will make a big difference and make everyone's lives better than under a Tory government.

#improvingmetrics

Blessed be the people

 

[PVA]

It's almost like people want Labour to fail just because of Starmer.

It's like when some people seem to want City to lose so they can moan about Robins/King/Kasey Palmer.

Some people have spent so long bashing Starmer that they have to hope he fails just to save face.

 

[PVA]

#improvingmetrics

Blessed be the people

Cool let's just improve vibes then and hand the Tories another 80 seat majority

 

[clint van damme]

It's like when some people seem to want City to lose so they can moan about Robins/King/Kasey Palmer.

Some people have spent so long bashing Starmer that they have to hope he fails just to save face.

Failures subjective.
What you consider to be success, which is small improvements, (and you're quite within your rights to do so), I'd consider a failure given how far the country's deteriorated.
I'd be happy if he brought about the level of improvement I considered successful, but nothing he or his shadow cabinet have said indicates he'll do it.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Cant forget Labour crashing the economy and trying to blame everyone else for their failure, by not putting in controls on the economy.

And then the huge gaping whole in the UK finances that was formed by the complete failure to actually do anything about it.

The violent deaths of over 150,000 civilians in and around Iraq.

How can you possibly support this sack of shit, Shmmeee?

One could argue your faith in Labour is extreme as any religious fundamentalist.

The global banking industry crashed the economy. As for controls have you missed the right-wing that basically want to remove all regulation from that particular industry for 'growth'? In fact it's what a lot of Tories voted for Brexit for.

And crashing the economy, did you miss the huge fuck-up made by Tory Liz Truss little more than a year ago? And that was entirely down to the government.

And the Labour party is exactly the same one as voted to go to war in Iraq.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Maybe yes, Corbyn is to left wing for middle England and the so called red wall, blue Labour

Starmer would have got annihilated by Johnson.

 

[shmmeee]

Yeah, and it's do-able with both parents grafting for it living a very modest life otherwise.

21k a year disposable income makes you rich mate. The average household income after tax and benefits is £38k. So an average household sending one kid to private would have to spend almost two third on that alone leaving £17k for three people including housing.

Using the 60k example, guessing it's take home of about £3.8k a month.

Mortgage is £680, School about £1325. Leaves about £1.8k for other bills / living.

With a bursary then the school cost would go down. A lower than average mortgage then again it goes down.

Like I said, not everybody who chooses it is "rich" or "from money". There are a lot of normal people who just graft and go without themselves.

Mortgage is £680!! Where they living??

 

[shmmeee]

Starmer would have got annihilated by Johnson.

Why do you think that? Johnson and the Tories weren’t particularly popular. Starmer is around the same level now.

 

[shmmeee]

Using the 60k example, guessing it's take home of about £3.8k a month.

Mortgage is £680, School about £1325. Leaves about £1.8k for other bills / living.

With a bursary then the school cost would go down. A lower than average mortgage then again it goes down.

Like I said, not everybody who chooses it is "rich" or "from money". There are a lot of normal people who just graft and go without themselves.

There are absolutely not “a lot of normal people” there’s a few outliers but we have the data and the vast vast majority are very rich.

And most people have two or more kids. Which instantly blows your calculations apart. Maybe a double income family with an only child living somewhere cheap like a one bed flat in Rugby can manage it. I wouldn’t want to be their kid come holiday time mind.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

My preference for FPTP is more technical.

Bearing in mind the rarity that a party will reach 51% of the popular vote, coalition governments become the norm. Which, imo, isn’t what the electorate votes for (in most cases). Let’s use this election to make a hypothetical example:

Labour is currently polling at 45-46% so would need either the Lib Dems or Greens to form a coalition. Why should a junior party have the power to force through policies the electorate didn’t give a mandate for?

Continuing with the this election as an example, I believe the party with the most votes should form the government. Labour polling on 45%, hypothetically could be thwarted by a coalition of the other parties. This happened in Spain this year where a centre-right party ‘won’ the election but the centre-left party formed the government. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders ‘won’ the election but will not be the next PM.

PR systems tend to be more fragmented to parties rarely poll above 40% so tend to need ‘rainbow coalitions’ (multiple parties) and governments can be brought down by these junior parties.

Take Brexit for example, at 52:48, if we had a PR electoral system, we wouldn’t have had a decisive conclusion to that issue. FPTP delivered a government with a large majority to push through their agenda, likewise with this upcoming election where Labour. The term ‘elective dictatorship’ is apt and actually, a perk of our system.

As for 16-17 year old votes, there’s a reason most countries only enfranchise them for local/municipal elections rather than national elections.

The only reason I like FPTP is because we have constituencies and so you are voting for an actual individual to represent you. That should be the person who gets the most votes, so I don't like things like STV for that. I agree that coalitions can lead to stalemate and not a lot being done, but at the same time I don't like the idea of a party getting the votes of around 25% of the population having the ability to pass whatever laws it feels like due to a huge majority.

However, that does lead to a result that is not representative of the vote at a national scale and is unfair. Hence why I think the single vote should be used to elect two houses - the first on FPTP so we have local representatives and the second on PV to reflect the overall trend.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Nobody is expecting big changes which is why they are already disappointed. Except for shmmeee and PVA of course

You’re in a feisty mood this morning!

The only reason I like FPTP is because we have constituencies and so you are voting for an actual individual to represent you. That should be the person who gets the most votes, so I don't like things like STV for that. I agree that coalitions can lead to stalemate and not a lot being done, but at the same time I don't like the idea of a party getting the votes of around 25% of the population having the ability to pass whatever laws it feels like due to a huge majority.

However, that does lead to a result that is not representative of the vote at a national scale and is unfair. Hence why I think the single vote should be used to elect two houses - the first on FPTP so we have local representatives and the second on PV to reflect the overall trend.

Agreed on everything bar the elected 2nd chamber.

We don’t have separation of powers in the same way that the US does so had two elected chambers would cause problems. The reason the Commons can force legislation through against the Lords

That said, the Lords needs reforming. There’s no need to have 800+ members. If we wanted some form of PR, I don’t mind the idea of a ‘representative’ appointed chamber i.e. ‘x’ party gets ‘y’ % of the vote and gets ‘z’ seats to allocate. That way you get a form of PR but the Lords remains subordinate to the House of Commons.

As a principle, I’d rather a government get on with their policy programme with as few blockers as possible. I don’t fancy replicating the deadlocks we see in the US or even in France. The ultimate scrutiny is the ballot box at elections.

 

[MalcSB]

The only reason I like FPTP is because we have constituencies and so you are voting for an actual individual to represent you. That should be the person who gets the most votes, so I don't like things like STV for that. I agree that coalitions can lead to stalemate and not a lot being done, but at the same time I don't like the idea of a party getting the votes of around 25% of the population having the ability to pass whatever laws it feels like due to a huge majority.

However, that does lead to a result that is not representative of the vote at a national scale and is unfair. Hence why I think the single vote should be used to elect two houses - the first on FPTP so we have local representatives and the second on PV to reflect the overall trend.

Interesting idea, presumably sack the House of Lords?

 

[CCFCSteve]

The global banking industry crashed the economy. As for controls have you missed the right-wing that basically want to remove all regulation from that particular industry for 'growth'? In fact it's what a lot of Tories voted for Brexit for.

And crashing the economy, did you miss the huge fuck-up made by Tory Liz Truss little more than a year ago? And that was entirely down to the government.

And the Labour party is exactly the same one as voted to go to war in Iraq.

Just to be clear, however shit Truss was…and she was shit…she didn’t ‘crash the economy’ SBD. She caused a spike in borrowing costs for a relatively short period of time. Sunak/Hunt, whilst hardly the most inspiring of combos, did settle this down

 

[PVA]

Failures subjective.
What you consider to be success, which is small improvements, (and you're quite within your rights to do so), I'd consider a failure given how far the country's deteriorated.
I'd be happy if he brought about the level of improvement I considered successful, but nothing he or his shadow cabinet have said indicates he'll do it.

Of course, a lot of it is subjective and I agree we're all entitled to have our own views on what we consider successful.

My point was that I think we'll see lots of little changes/improvements which will all add up to an overall significant improvement.

I don't think we're going to halve child poverty, homelessness, hospital waiting lists etc etc overnight. But I think we will see improvements in all of those things and more which, again, when added together will result in a better society.

 

[MalcSB]

For someone who mentions logical thinking and honesty so often in his posts you're not displaying much of either regarding this issue.

Well, the Labour Party certainly aren’t .

 

[SIR ERNIE]

You don't think things will improve under Labour?

Which things?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Day 6: Family Life​ Click here to listen to an audio recording of this reflection.​

Matthew 18.1-4 'Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like children you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” ’

Love matters and families matter in our society. Family is where most people give and receive love and care. We find different kinds of families in the gospels as in today’s world: parents with children; households of siblings; multigenerational households and single people with wide support networks. Families are places of mutual care and learning: Jesus sets a child in the midst of the disciples as an example to be followed. For Jesus, family was not merely defined by blood relationship. He declares (in Matthew 21.49-50) that his disciples – those who do God’s will – were part of his family, too. The idea of family is broadened to encompass a wider community where people find love and care. Families, in their different forms and shapes, are strong social units in a society. Let us pray today for all families, and pray that our society may be a place of mutual care, learning and support for all. ​

Let all families know your joy. Watch over children, guide the young, and grant us your peace to all in turmoil. Hear us, good Lord.

 

[duffer]

On your revised argument, should 16 year olds be able to marry without parental permission, drive a car or a lorry, be regarded as an adult if arrested for a crime. Should child benefit and child maintenance stop at 16 as they are not children?

If it“s a question of maturity, then go the whole hog. It isn’t, it’s gerrymandering. If the majority of 16 year olds belonged to a right wing organisation - let’s say a Farage Youth - Labour would not be including this in their manifesto.

On your revised argument, now that we've shot down your rationality and frontline service point of contention, are you now proposing that people who are unmarried or who don't drive shouldn't be able to vote?

You keep scratching around to find different reasons of why we shouldn't allow 16-18 year olds to vote, but ultimately you're only really concerned because they may not vote the way you want. Everything else, politely, is just noise.

A small aside: Gerrymandering, as I understand it, really relates to the redrawing of electoral boundaries rather than the enfranchisement of a specific cohort. It's interesting to note that both the recent redrawing of constituencies and the requirement for voter ID favour the Conservatives. Hmm.

 

[skybluetony176]

I don’t understand the opposition to a coalition government. The last time we had anything near to resembling a functioning government it was a coalition. Regardless of what you thought about the politics the one thing that they did do was get on with the business of Government without the distraction of in fighting. Ironically there was also less factions in the coalition government than there is in the current one party government.

Besides a blend of the current Labour and Green or Lib Dem for that matter manifesto don’t sound that bad. It would force Labour to be more radical.

 

[duffer]

Just to be clear, however shit Truss was…and she was shit…she didn’t ‘crash the economy’ SBD. She caused a spike in borrowing costs for a relatively short period of time. Sunak/Hunt, whilst hardly the most inspiring of combos, did settle this down

The "spike" in borrowing costs caused by Truss's brainless right-wing wet dream of unfunded tax cuts is still very much ongoing. In fact, as more people fall off fixed rate deals, the impact on people's lives is actually still growing...

 

[Deleted member 5849]

That said, the Lords needs reforming. There’s no need to have 800+ members. If we wanted some form of PR, I don’t mind the idea of a ‘representative’ appointed chamber i.e. ‘x’ party gets ‘y’ % of the vote and gets ‘z’ seats to allocate. That way you get a form of PR but the Lords remains subordinate to the House of Commons.

About the first thing I've agreed with you on

 

[torchomatic]

P

Just to be clear, however shit Truss was…and she was shit…she didn’t ‘crash the economy’ SBD. She caused a spike in borrowing costs for a relatively short period of time. Sunak/Hunt, whilst hardly the most inspiring of combos, did settle this down

It wasn't a short period of time. Look at the level of interest rates. People pay a hell of a lot more on a monthly basis and many more lost their homes because of Truss and her fucked up policies.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

About the first thing I've agreed with you on

See, it’s always better to find common ground where we can.

We all care about our country and just want the best for it, even if we disagree on the ways and means.

 

[MalcSB]

On your revised argument, now that we've shot down your rationality and frontline service point of contention, are you now proposing that people who are unmarried or who don't drive shouldn't be able to vote?

You keep scratching around to find different reasons of why we shouldn't allow 16-18 year olds to vote, but ultimately you're only really concerned because they may not vote the way you want. Everything else, politely, is just noise.

A small aside: Gerrymandering, as I understand it, really relates to the redrawing of electoral boundaries rather than the enfranchisement of a specific cohort. It's interesting to note that both the recent redrawing of constituencies and the requirement for voter ID favour the Conservatives. Hmm.

Of Course I’m not proposing that the unmarried or those how can’t drive shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

And of course you are not giving an answer to the questions I asked - should 16 year olds be able to marry without parental permission, drive a car or a lorry, be regarded as an adult if arrested for a crime. Should child benefit and child maintenance stop at 16 as they are not children?

 

[duffer]

I don’t understand the opposition to a coalition government. The last time we had anything near to resembling a functioning government it was a coalition. Regardless of what you thought about the politics the one thing that they did do was get on with the business of Government without the distraction of in fighting. Ironically there was also less factions in the coalition government than there is in the current one party government.

Besides a blend of the current Labour and Green or Lib Dem for that matter manifesto don’t sound that bad. It would force Labour to be more radical.

Indeed, or it might mitigate the worst excesses of either Tory or Labour, if you're a committed centrist.

I'm not a committed centrist, obviously, but I absolutely believe that every vote should count.

At the moment we've got both main parties, and more than a few people here, saying that a vote for the Greens, or Reform for that matter, is wasted, and you have to vote for them for it to count. That is not democracy, imho.

There's an interesting idea in this (slightly aged) article, "small district PR", which retains local links but also results in fairer outcomes for those who don't just support Tories or Labour...

What would the election look like under PR?

The further fragmentation of the UK’s party system in 2015 is likely to lead to the most disproportionate outcome of any election in the post-war era. In this post, Jack Blumenau and Simon Hix, alo…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

 

[clint van damme]

Well, the Labour Party certainly aren’t .

So it's just about partisan politics for you then clearly.
Fair enough.

 

[duffer]

Of Course I’m not proposing that the unmarried or those how can’t drive shouldn’t be allowed to vote.

And of course you are not giving an answer to the questions I asked - should 16 year olds be able to marry without parental permission, drive a car or a lorry, be regarded as an adult if arrested for a crime. Should child benefit and child maintenance stop at 16 as they are not children?

I haven't thought much about those questions, because it's a diversion.

We're talking about the right to vote here, you're scrambling around the edges to justify an opinion driven solely by a concern that they won't vote the "right" way.

Anyway, apologies, but I've got to crack on so I'll leave you to it. Bye for now...

 

[MalcSB]

So it's just about partisan politics for you then clearly.
Fair enough.

Not this issue. I just don’t think 16 and 17 year olds are mature enough or have enough experience of life to be given the vote. As I have said elsewhere, if they are mature enough then make the age of majority 16 and be done with it. That would include sending 16 year olds to be killed on the front line of any future armed conflict. (For avoidance of doubt, that is not what I am advocating).

I have voted for both Labour and Conservatives in the past. At the moment, I don't think either major party deserve my vote, Tories have been awful but I don’t trust Labour - and particularly Starmer, Rayner and Reeves. I think the Liberals are clowns and I don’t support Green Party policies. Reform are too far to the right.

So I may, as shmmeee would call it, be a coward and not vote at all, or be a “none of the above” responder.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Interesting idea, presumably sack the House of Lords?

Yes. PR chamber replaces it.