Do you want to discuss boring politics? (43 Viewers)

[shmmeee]

Don’t see the point in a second chamber of party appointees and one of local MPs.

Maybe better to reform the metro mayor stuff and have PR regional govt with proper tax raising, crime and transport powers that levelised English regions and Scotland, NI and Wales. Then Id have a slimmed down expert second house. Fixed term appointments, based on experience and specialism, maybe the national PR vote used to determine how many of these each party gets or makeup of the select committee that appoints them or something.

I like the theory but not the practise of the HoL and wouldn’t just want two elected chambers playing party politics. I think with term limits and a proper revision of selection criteria and process it can be made into a 21st century version of what it’s supposed to be.

Then you could have locally elected regional govt with FPTP, a smaller nationally elected parliament with PR, and the Lords appointed.

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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

Starmer isn't attracting the traditional Labour left wing and Johnson would be better at attracting the right wing Starmer is courting, plus Johnson would win the PR battle.

 

[MalcSB]

Don’t see the point in a second chamber of party appointees and one of local MPs.

Maybe better to reform the metro mayor stuff and have PR regional govt with proper tax raising, crime and transport powers that levelised English regions and Scotland, NI and Wales. Then Id have a slimmed down expert second house. Fixed term appointments, based on experience and specialism, maybe the national PR vote used to determine how many of these each party gets or makeup of the select committee that appoints them or something.

I like the theory but not the practise of the HoL and wouldn’t just want two elected chambers playing party politics. I think with term limits and a proper revision of selection criteria and process it can be made into a 21st century version of what it’s supposed to be.

Then you could have locally elected regional govt with FPTP, a smaller nationally elected parliament with PR, and the Lords appointed.

The last Labour government wanted regional government but the idea wasn’t particularly popular. They tried to move toward it by stealth by reorganisation of public services on a regional rather than district basis. Why should English regions be “levelised“ with devolved nations. They would be every chance of inequalities within England.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

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

It boils down to this; do we want to vote a party or a government?

In PR, you rarely get majorities so coalitions become the norm, is that what people actually vote for? Coalition governments tend to be more volatile.

Voting smaller parties is not necessarily a ‘wasted’ vote. It will either push the mainstream parties to the right or left or adopt stances on a controversial topic e.g. Brexit. The tories are finding out exactly how costly it is by ignoring key priorities of conservatives - highest tax burden, record net migration being the main draw for Reform.

After all, UKIP achieved its political aims without being in government and electing 2 MPs.

 

[Sick Boy]

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.

To be fair it does keep the dominant party in check to an extent.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

You don't think things will improve under Labour?

You have said improvements under virtually every metric while also accepting that he is mostly going to just tinker around the edges.

 

[PVA]

You have said improvements under virtually every metric while also accepting that he is mostly going to just tinker around the edges.

Yep. As I say, lots of little improvements to bring about a very positive overall improvement for society.

 

[clint van damme]

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.

He could go a long way to alleviating child poverty though, by lifting the 2 child benefit cap.
And it's a failure to commit to policies like that which make people question his suitability as Labour leader.

 

[MalcSB]

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...

And you are supporting a policy driven solely by a belief that they will vote the “right” way.

 

[MalcSB]

Inflation down to the target of 2%.

 

[Sick Boy]

He could go a long way to alleviating child poverty though, by lifting the 2 child benefit cap.
And it's a failure to commit to policies like that which make people question his suitability as Labour leader.

It the Tory-lite version of Labour, unfortunately rather than a proper Labour government.

 

[wingy]

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

Or #Rachelbot!

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

And you are supporting a policy driven solely by a belief that they will vote the “right” way.

To be honest, the basis for moving the vote down to 18 was done in conjunction with moving age of majority down from 21 to 18.

Therefore, if we moved the voting age down, we ought to move the age of majority down too. That’s a pretty consistent line to take. If you don’t agree the age of majority should be 16/17, you shouldn’t believe in the right to vote.

 

[wingy]

Inflation down to the target of 2%.

Get on it Bank, bout bloody time, what cause, fuel?
I see petrol is "relatively cheap again".
Wonder what cycycle was the reason for this an election maybe?

 

[clint van damme]

Get on it Bank, bout bloody time, what cause, fuel?
I see petrol is "relatively cheap again".
Wonder what cycycle was the reason for this an election maybe?

No hint of an interest rate deduction at the moment.

 

[PVA]

He could go a long way to alleviating child poverty though, by lifting the 2 child benefit cap.
And it's a failure to commit to policies like that which make people question his suitability as Labour leader.

And I don't agree with his stance on that.

I don't have to agree with everything he says and does to be able to think that he will bring change and is by far the best option.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

And I don't agree with his stance on that.

I don't have to agree with everything he says and does to be able to think that he will bring change and is by far the best option.

Better than an appalling Sunak, I agree. But nowhere near what the country needs.

 

[MalcSB]

To be honest, the basis for moving the vote down to 18 was done in conjunction with moving age of majority down from 21 to 18.

Therefore, if we moved the voting age down, we ought to move the age of majority down too. That’s a pretty consistent line to take. If you don’t agree the age of majority should be 16/17, you shouldn’t believe in the right to vote.

That’s what I have been arguing,

 

[jimmyhillsfanclub]

Fair chance of deflation in the coming months I reckon.....

 

[shmmeee]

The last Labour government wanted regional government but the idea wasn’t particularly popular. They tried to move toward it by stealth by reorganisation of public services on a regional rather than district basis. Why should English regions be “levelised“ with devolved nations. They would be every chance of inequalities within England.

The nations aren’t really and there’s a sort of hodge podge of devolved responsibilities.

You could add an English government in but it seems a bit pointless. The metro mayors have a sort of piecemeal devolution but then you’ve got random places with no metro mayor and places like Liverpool and Manchester that should probably be one.

There are huge inequalities in England, I’m not sure where you’ve been but the entire problem is we have London and everywhere else. We need places like Birmingham and Manchester to be able to grow and use the receipts from that growth for things like transport.

We are extremely centralised compared to pretty much any other developed nation and it means regions have to go cap in hand to a Westminster minister for the basics.

If you want to reform and have PR as some do, and keep the local link as some do, I think beefing up the regions is preferable to another elected national chamber.

 

[MalcSB]

Get on it Bank, bout bloody time, what cause, fuel?
I see petrol is "relatively cheap again".
Wonder what cycycle was the reason for this an election maybe?

From the BBC
The drop in May's inflation figure was driven by a slight fall in prices for food and soft drinks, and slower price rises for recreation and culture and furniture and household goods.

However, petrol prices are rising again, and food prices are still 25% higher than at the beginning of 2022.

 

[torchomatic]

Better than an appalling Sunak, I agree. But nowhere near what the country needs.

Don't think we can say that before he's even got into No. 10.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Don't think we can say that before he's even got into No. 10.

tbf, he'd have to really pull out all the stops to be as bad as the past two or three Tory leaders!

 

[shmmeee]

Don't think we can say that before he's even got into No. 10.

TBF it’s not going to matter. We are the States a few years later now and you just need to look to Biden to know the likes of BSB will be complaining about Starmer in five years regardless of what he does.

 

[torchomatic]

tbf, he'd have to really pull out all the stops to be as bad as the past two or three Tory leaders!

Well, by the looks of it, a fair few have already decided he is.

 

[MalcSB]

The nations aren’t really and there’s a sort of hodge podge of devolved responsibilities.

You could add an English government in but it seems a bit pointless. The metro mayors have a sort of piecemeal devolution but then you’ve got random places with no metro mayor and places like Liverpool and Manchester that should probably be one.

There are huge inequalities in England, I’m not sure where you’ve been but the entire problem is we have London and everywhere else. We need places like Birmingham and Manchester to be able to grow and use the receipts from that growth for things like transport.

We are extremely centralised compared to pretty much any other developed nation and it means regions have to go cap in hand to a Westminster minister for the basics.

If you want to reform and have PR as some do, and keep the local link as some do, I think beefing up the regions is preferable to another elected national chamber.

Having an English government wouldn’t be pointless at all, that way issues affecting England wouldn’t be voted on by devolved nations MPs.

Alternatively, why not just give the devolved nations independence and have an English Parliament. They would shit themselves at the loss of the Barnet formula, but let them get on with it.

 

[wingy]

tbf, he'd have to really pull out all the stops to be as bad as the past two or three Tory leaders!

Or three or fouror five!

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Having an English government wouldn’t be pointless at all, that way issues affecting England wouldn’t be voted on by devolved nations MPs.

Alternatively, why not just give the devolved nations independence and have an English Parliament. They would shit themselves at the loss if the Barnet formula, but let them get on with it.

Another apparent British patriot very happy to dissolve the country

 

[MalcSB]

Another apparent British patriot very happy to dissolve the country

I could have a Scottish passport, why you would think I am a British patriot I have no idea.

 

[MalcSB]

Or three or fouror five!

Or 9 or 10

 

[wingy]

Or 9 or 10

Let's give the whole thing up!

 

[PVA]

Better than an appalling Sunak, I agree. But nowhere near what the country needs.

Think of Starmer/Labour as Mark Robins.

Do I think we'd be better under Jurgen Klopp (ie a mythical spending plan that fixes all of the country's woes overnight)? Yes of course. But I also know Klopp is unattainable for us right now.

So I'll take Robins stopping the rot and the gradual year on year improvement.

I sure as shit don't want Kenny Jackett in charge!

 

[MalcSB]

Think of Starmer/Labour as Mark Robins.

Do I think we'd be better under Jurgen Klopp (ie a mythical spending plan that fixes all of the country's woes overnight)? Yes of course. But I also know Klopp is unattainable for us right now.

So I'll take Robins stopping the rot and the gradual year on year improvement.

I sure as shit don't want Kenny Jackett in charge!

That’s a nicely thought out analogy. Unfortunately, Starmer could well be more Russell Slade or Andy Thorn.

 

[Mucca Mad Boys]

Think of Starmer/Labour as Mark Robins.

Do I think we'd be better under Jurgen Klopp (ie a mythical spending plan that fixes all of the country's woes overnight)? Yes of course. But I also know Klopp is unattainable for us right now.

So I'll take Robins stopping the rot and the gradual year on year improvement.

I sure as shit don't want Kenny Jackett in charge!

If Starmer and Labour win and things do improve, then the electorate would conclude that they deserve to stay in power. That’s a big if and the points people are making that the actual detail of Labour’s policies is not that much different from the Tories. Take housing as an example, they plan to build the same target of 300k per year despite their plans around planning reform.

If the argument is that Tories have the ‘right’ policies but managing it wrongly, it’s quite hopeful to the point of naivety to believe that somehow Labour will just manage things better.

Personally, I don’t trust the Tories or Labour and find the smaller parties either; unsavoury, have bad policies or both.

 

[chiefdave]

No 16 year olds have fully developed the rational part of the brain. A minority of adults have lost that ability so not really a valid comparison,

Votes for 16 year olds is absolutely fucking ridiculous and to introduce it would be gerrymandering. There is no logical reason a school kid should be able to vote - other than gerrymandering. You and your comrades know it and are wriggling like the canned worms you mention to justify it using inaccurate statements.

Not really sure why you think I'm a passionate supporter of 16 year olds having the vote. Not really fussed either way. Given the turnout among younger voters not sure its really a big problem either way.

I do however think you're opening up a huge can of worms if you're justifying who does or doesn't get a vote based on their cognitive ability to make a reasoned decision.

Do find it interesting that many of the people you see online vehemently against 16 year olds voting because its gerrymandering seem to have had nothing to say on the introduction of voter id requirements or the changes to ex-pat voting. Does come across as changes being fine as long as they are perceived to benefit the 'right' party.