You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
pipm1
Member
People feeling guilty that they’ve just screwed the really poor people?:
I suspect a lot of the losers looking for something positive to do. (I always do a bunch of guilty charity stuff around christmas anyway but this year it definitely feels like "****'s sake, I've got to do SOMETHING, the world hasn't ended")
So, taking my own constituency as an example. The incumbent MP retained his seat with 46% of the vote with a turnout of, just shy of 72%.
I think this is actually a pretty good example of FPTP working as intended and yet even with those numbers it’s massively unfair.Out of 68330 registered voters, 45719 did NOT vote for the winner.!!!! How can that be.?
Dear god, can we give it a rest with this crazed mental gymnastics? Why is it unfair? They didn't vote. Full stop. You've lumped that 28% who didn't vote as people who wouldn't have voted against him, which is highly unlikely. More likely is 46% of those non-votors would have voted for him/her so the result would be the same.
It's likely for any constituency, the MP you like or dislike probably didn't get a full 50% of the 'total' votes. But they got the most votes out of the voters who did bother.
Don't vote, then a) you can't complain about the result and b) you don't get counted as opposition to the winner.
Yep, even in a PR system you don't include nonvoters (though you're less likely to make them feel like there's no point).
I mean, take it to its illogical conclusion- the nonvoters inevitably end up with the party that's most popular with everyone else, so if there was somehow representation for the Ain't Care party, their job would be to go along with the most popular option in every vote, right? So that'd end up empowering your 46% of 72% party even more.
PR is ****ed, but not because of this. If a minority turn out to vote then that's definitely indicating a massive problem but again, that's not what we've got.
People feeling guilty that they’ve just screwed the really poor people?:
Good articles from Jess Phillips and Lisa Nandy on the guardian at the moment
Leadership ambitions methinks. Good
Non voters give up their vote and their say. By not voting they strengthen yours and my vote.
If they don't vote, they don't get a say.
Which is why I'm completely against compulsory voting, if people don't want a vote, that's entirely up to them. The democratic process goes on without them.
You can't say x amount didn't vote, we don't know what they think. We do know what they think, they are sitting on the fence. They don't count in the decision.
There is also nothing wrong with not voting, I've sat on the fence myself before in an election.
PR is ****, but not because of this.
What's up with PR?
Non-voters can regarded as people who are happy with whatever result the voting majority produce.
If any of the parties wanted a different result it would be more effective trying to energise the non-voting segment rather than changing the minds of another party's voters.
The result is the result, like it or not.
But It's time we had PR as in Australia where you mark the candidates in order of preference (or not at all).
Just saw this graphic...
[url= https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49219474298_07566557ba_o.jp g" target="_blank">https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/49219474298_07566557ba_o.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
It wouldn't end up exactly like that if there had really been PR because people vote in different patterns in PR.
Yep, I had worked out 18 green MPs yesterday when discussing PR with wife. It definitely makes my vote actually count and also fairly shows what the electorate voted for.
Having a vote of 42$ giving 56% of the seats is clearly not right as it is today as the other 58% of voters are now not represented at all for next 5 years.
The trouble with PR is that we'll end up with no majority in the HoC and as a result the same sort of paralysis we've seen these past 3 years. OTOH, if that's the norm the benefit becomes that parties know they have to co-operate and work on consensus politics rather than the conflict and whipping to conform of our essentially 2 party system. At least FPTP gives a degree of certainty.
The trouble with FPTP / representative democracy is that we don't have representation. MP's don't listen to their constituents, they are voted in as local reps but against a national prosectus and then are whipped to vote how their bosses decide rather than in the interests of their constituents. It's hard to numerate (although a good local MP will know what the tone is through surgeries, emails and so on) but of course the EU Ref gave us that absolutely. I live in a 60% remain area yet my MP voted at all points for the WA* because that was the will of some people in a different part of the country with different needs and aspirations. I know it's more complex in this case but it's an example.
* right until she resigned because of it, lost the whip, was deselected and is now unemployed. Some reward for doing the job she was elected to do.
The trouble with PR is that we’ll end up with no majority in the HoC and as a result the same sort of paralysis we’ve seen these past 3 years
Going by Epic’s graphic.
No, you wouldn’t have had paralysis.
Lord Hailsham once said we live in an 'elective dictatorship', partly due to FPTP but mostly due to the disproportionate power of the executive (likely to be reinforced by the current Tory policies set out in their manifesto).
Going by Epic’s graphic.
No, you wouldn’t have had paralysis.
I assume you mean a Lab/Lib/other coalition would form the government?
- if so, as I said "parties know they have to co-operate and work on consensus politics "
and in any case, the LibDems had said they wouldn't support Corbyn as PM, etc.
Whole system needs review, not just the script but the way the actors play their part in it.
OTOH, if that’s the norm the benefit becomes that parties know they have to co-operate and work on consensus politics rather than the conflict and whipping to conform of our essentially 2 party system.
It's how the many many other countries manage. Wouldn't you rather be governed in a spirit of co-operation rather than combat?
absolutely.....but they haven't yet shown that ability have they, whereas they have shown the opposite regularly.
Tory/LibDem coalition? That went well.
It’s likely for any constituency, the MP you like or dislike probably didn’t get a full 50% of the ‘total’ votes.
Mine saw a 6% FALL to only 59%. All votes equal?
Coalitions have worked perfectly well in Europe for donkey's years. Of course we are leaving that family to hold hand's with Uncle USA which has probably the most polarised political system anywhere.
Here's my 2 pennorth. PR and all MPs form the government (or administration as I would prefer to call it).
Personally I don't think there is anything particularly wrong with either system. Both have their benefits and pitfalls. It's really just a case of what do you want out of your system.
Fptp, has the benefit of giving the country a decisive direction (usually), for good or bad, but it is winner takes all stuff everyone else.
Pr, has the benefit that everyone's voice is accurately represented. But eternal coalitions would be the case there so that would be a big psychological shift for the UK. It can end up a bit with the tail wagging the dog too at times.
Both are valid democratic systems I think.
piemonster
Going by Epic’s graphic.
No, you wouldn’t have had paralysis.
On Brexit no. But the SNP wouldn't exactly be playing ball for 5 years if refused an indy ref.
The greens would also be demanding alsorts.
Labour and the lid dems would also be great pals i'm sure!
Etc etc.
Not saying that's bad. But it would be an entirely different game.
Another thing that's annoying me, is on radio shows I keep hearing that the SNP are over represented.
They aren't. Scotland gets 9% of seats on 8.2% of the population. So a smidgeon, hardly vastly over represented.
The reason they get more seats than say the greens/libdems/Brexit party. Is that the vote is concentrated into the 59 seats, not spread out over 650, and there is more of a 3 way split in alot of constituencies up here.
Biggest problem with fptp is you get a lot of unrepresented people. Which tbh is probably why we end up with this f you Brexit vote.
Not saying that’s bad. But it would be an entirely different game.
Yes it would be a game of compromise with a safety net over harsh polices (the sort of stuff we will see over the next 5 year would not have got through)
I'm pro PR btw, i just don't think the claim that FPTP is undemocratic rings true, both are valid systems. Like I say it's just a case of what do you want from the system.
I'd prefer everyones voice is heard, both people I agree and disagree with. I'm for the politics of compromise.
It would be an all mighty shift for the UK to get used to it mind.
This election I found myself thinking it would be good if I could have a first choice vote and a second choice vote if the first choice didn't have a chance in hell of winning. But yeah PR would be better still. Needless to say I did the tactical vote for a party I didn't want to vote for. Have not voted several times over the years. IMO the only party with no right to complain about those who don't vote are the winning party.
The other thing you'd get in a PR system, is less of these parties with in parties, so Labour, would already be about 3 different parties and the tories at least 2.
One of the big issues with PR is that you can lose the link between a local electorate and who it is that represents them. For Holywood, the List top-up system was used to help mitigate this (amongst other reasons). I actually think that the way to fix this is to increase devolution to regions/cities. The powers of local councils need to be increased so that most day-to-day stuff is handled by them. Westminster should be much smaller and handle only matters of National significance. Look at the likes of Germany for an example.
You might be on to something there. There's perhaps a compelling argument for the local MP for local people and the Westminster representative to potentially be two different people.
Our Labour constituency fell to the Tories this time around, the incumbent was a well-respected chap who's lived here all his life and done a load of good work in the community, and his replacement is some bloke I've never heard of living in London. Now, the new blue might* be a better representative within government, but he's hardly likely to have his finger on the pulse about local issues.
Having separate people also dodges the bullet of second homes and mahoosive expenses claims.
(* - probably won't, but we can but hope)
Interesting take on why people didn't like Corbyn and not something I'd thought of:
And today’s award for not-the-sharpest-tool-in-the-box goes to…no, not Diane…
If it wasn't Diane I'm guessing you got it then 😂
The non photoshopped version somebody posted was taken the day before the election and unless somebody went to the trouble of photoshopping all these pictures she must have had odd shoes on.
I can't see to find the "originals" of these 🤔
A difficult watch but as always he’s spot on
Nsfw and fb link, sorry
Interesting take on why people didn’t like Corbyn and not something I’d thought of:
“If you are on the doorstep and one person mentions Brexit, but five people mention the leader of the Labour party for being the reason they are not going to vote for you, then things need to change. I believe that the leader of the Labour party should not be resigning today, he should have resigned a long time ago.”
On the “patriotism” angle… Corbyn’s responses to Russian spies out to kill in England, and Iranian attacks on ships, did Labour no favours whatsoever.
kelvin
Subscriber
On the “patriotism” angle… Corbyn’s responses to Russian spies out to kill in England, and Iranian attacks on ships, did Labour no favours whatsoever.
His response re Russia was "let's prove it before we respond", as it was in Iran. Boris Johnston's response re Russia, as foreign secretary was to lie on record about being given proof by Porton Down and undermine the actual case against Russia, giving them a perfect response. Oh and to then suppress a report on Russian campaign interference.
And what was the real outcome of these 2 things, what action did the government take? Some mean tweets.
Patriotism ffs, one of these 2 leaders was found to have lied to the bloody queen, how patriotic do you want to get? But that was OK because brexit, meanwhile Corbyn's comments were awful because beards or something. What, exactly, could Labour have changed in this scenario that would make a difference?
seosamh77
Subscriber
Biggest problem with fptp is you get a lot of unrepresented people. Which tbh is probably why we end up with this f you Brexit vote.
Absolutely this. A lot of people genuinely thought it was a good thing that UKIP's 900000 voters in 2010 got them 0 seats and 3.8 million in 2015 got them 1. Or put it a different way, they had 22 times the votes of the DUP who got 8 seats, meaning each UKIP vote was worth 1/176th of each DUP vote.
Of course those voters felt disenfranchised and angry. If you look at the stats today they just show up as "other" unless you go digging, as if they were all votes for lord buckethead or something. It's a twofold issue, they were frozen out by FPTP then treated as if they were just meaningless votes by the people who benefitted from FPTP- David Cameron with a third of votes but a majority of seats, acting like he represented a majority. Even in 2017 when they had a bad year, they still had twice as many votes as the DUP who ended up being partners in government.
Of course it's bloody undemocratic. It's amazing how satisfied people can be if they just get a couple of seats.
In The Sunday Times. The New Statesman editor said he couldn't endorse Labour because Corbyn,s indulgence of anti semitism, refusal to take a stance on Brexit and toxic associations with extremists over several decades.
“let’s prove it before we respond”
Even if his response was limited to that, and you consider it the correct balanced response… it was seen as siding with Russia after an attack on UK soil by many.
kelvin
Subscriber
Even if his response was limited to that, and you consider it the correct balanced response… it was seen as siding with Russia after an attack on UK soil by many.
Sure. And basically that's an issue that you have to tackle. But can you tackle it by pitching every policy and every word you say based on how it might be twisted by a hostile media? Asking for evidence isn't siding with anyone. And the lack of evidence gave Russia a perfect attack line.
The delivery around that message was pisspoor from Labour- it should have been along the lines of "Clearly Russia are the number one suspects but we have to prove that." They might not respect the rule of law but we do, that sort of thing. It is our government's responsiblity to prove then act.
And on that note a more aggressive response to the tories would have been smart, too- "they talk a good game but what are they actually doing?" Because the government response to both Iran and Russia was piss-weak and that was asking to be hammered. Remember, Corbyn did call for stronger action against Russia once the case was actually proven. But that got totally lost in the mire.
They definitely had a hard job to get that message out but they botched it. But that wasn't just about asking for evidence.
Much navel gazing on here right now...
Question is remainiacs what are we going to do? At the heart of this the vast majority who voted for the Bojo are not people who create jobs or growth (at either end of the voting spectrum) one end will take the wealth and the other will expect to be handed a tiny bit of wealth from the Bojo overdraft?
No point looking back.... focus on the shit show post brexit.
oldmanmtb2
Member
No point looking back…. focus on the shit show post brexit.
Don't agree tbh, like I said elsewhere the Tories will be learning every possible lesson and honing every succesful tactic from the election, nobody else can afford to do any less. And specifically in Labour's case it's the refusal to analytically look at their own successes and failures that lets them make the next mistake.
And nothing's really changed yet- we know what's coming but there's no retaliation against brexit that'll work until it really starts to hit home. Sadly it'll be "project fear" from now until the worst starts to arrive.
Sorry about the previous post.
I don't wish suffering on anyone.
Calmed down now.
Hope I didn't offend too many people.
There's little we can do beyond looking after our own small bubble of friends and family.
We will have to see how the next few years pan out. I'm expecting a lot of pain and misery but hopeful that I'm wrong.
However, I intend to hope for the best and plan for the worst so am rationalising finances to best protect me and mine.
Have cancelled all unnecessary direct debits and now have a further £80 per month to absorb some possible cost implications of leaving.
5 years is a long time so ride the tide.
15 years is what you need to plan around...
5 years of lies, blame, its all jonny foreigners fault.
5 years of slow, painful realisation..
5 years to stabilse...
Think Thatcher - Major - Blair
We have literally regressed 30 years.
Strategy.
https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1208503694142189568?s=21
https://twitter.com/gabriel_pogrund/status/1208503697262759937?s=21