Senate The UK Politics discussion

Corbyn sat on the fence re: Brexit and People's Vote far too long.

 

I agree, and I think his overall stance on Brexit did him no favours; but in many ways he was caught between a rock and a hard place: oppose Brexit, and risk being torn to pieces for not 'respecting' the 'will of the people'; come down in favour of it (and Corbyn has for a long time been relatively Eurosceptic), and risk alienating most of his own supporter base- not least because the official party position as voted for by members, was to oppose Brexit, at least in its current form. Even the idea of a People's Vote divided Remainers.

I think Brexit created a political climate that has been incredibly strange and disturbing to witness. In my lifetime I don't think I've ever seen anything so singularly polarising for so many millions of people (and I remember the Heath government), and for there to be such a bizarre and distorted debate on it. I hope we never see the likes of it again, but I fear completing the transition to non-EU status will not make it go away as much as most people would like. The fallout from it will ensure that.

 

Corbyn was caught between a rock and a hard place.

I was never a fan but I still voted for them. I would have gone Lib Dem as normal if Swinson hadn't gone off on one (she was normally quite balanced)


Corbyn was always for leave, has been for years but couldn't openly say it because he would alienate the young voters which he knew he needed to have any chance of anything. The thing that scuppered the left in the last election was the refusal of both LD and Labour to actually work together and step down in wards where the other had a bigger chance of winning forcing a coalition at the end of it all.

After the clusterf*%& that is brexit hammers home in Q1 next year. The political focus needs to be on removing this sham of a government from the UK and implementing proper voter reform. FPTP is a garbage system and gives garbage governments, the Torys are in power with less than 30% of the votes. This is unacceptable in a modern society.

 

I absolutely agree on FPTP; and if Labour do get in, one of their main priorities should be to bring in PR. It would mean more coalition governments, but hey, welcome to my world.

 

I think more coalitions would be good.

We don't have much experience with them here and the last one is broadly considered a failure but I think that's unfair as was the entire government.

The LD's topped up a minority Tory government. the LD's however managed to temper Tory excesses (which we saw with a vengeance when they got a majority). The Tory's lucked out though because all the good ideas they implemented were on the LD manifesto and they took the credit for but the crap they got over the line was totally against the LD manifesto and the LD's took the blame for that. The LD's literally lost in every sense during the coalition and a lot of this sits with Cleggs inability to sell the LD's successes with any forcefulness during the coalition.

 

Of course it depends on which form of PR the UK could potentially adopt, but in most countries, political parties tend to proliferate even if there are still two or three main ones.

Here in Aus we have a preferential voting system. So, basically if there are, say, eight parties you mark them numerically in order of preference, which for me usually means something along the lines of:
1 Greens.
2 Cycling and Nature.
3 Labor. (yes that's how they spell their name)
4 Clive Palmer's slightly nutty party.
5 LNP.
6) Nazis, sort of.
7) Even bigger Nazis. Kill all Hipsters with shotguns, party.
8) Pauline Hansen's Monster Ego Party.

I actually can't remember the main party names, but in the banana republic that is Queensland, it sort of rolls like that. Some of the names might be slightly inaccurate.

Then there's the senate...
On the last senate paper I had, as I recall, 81 different political parties on it. It was about half a metre across. Fortunately, I didn't have to mark them '1-81', though that was an actual option, but there is an alternative, which I recall means you just mark one or two, I think. I've voted enough times so I ought to know- I mean, we've got bloody state elections tomorrow, and they're compulsory if I don't want to cop a fine!

Please don't bring in compulsory voting, PR or no; it causes mass panic.

 

Full PR in a multiparty environment with a monocameral parliament (Lords can't actually counter Commons) is very unstable. We've had it for 80 years here - with both World Wars in the middle. After WW2, the average lifespan of a government and a PM was 9 months (it was 16 months before).

 

In France perhaps. Australia has mostly done fine.

'cept that time the British governor-general dissolved the Gough Whitlam government in 1975, which sparked a constitutional crisis. Because, well in those days Britain did that sort of thing.

 

Okay, I'll grant that we actually had more than two parties that matter

 

I'll take that every time if it means my vote actually counts. Four general elections in the UK, and living in a safe Tory seat meant that my vote never counted.

FTR, the Greens (always my first preference) got more than 10% of the FP vote in 2019. Compare that with 2.7% in the UK in the same year. Australia currently has a coalition government. The Julia Gillard government was also a coalition where she did a deal with Greens and Independents. When it comes to votes in Parliament, the minor parties and independents can have a major say on the way things go. All things said, and horrible LNP pollies aside, it's still way better than the UK.

And as I mentioned earlier, we have state elections tomorrow. So much is decided at state level, not least a certain coronavirus handling, where states have basically ignored Morrison. Our federal government have been next to useless there. That's one of the reasons I advocate regional assemblies in England.

 

Ironically, it ended up making votes count less. Fragmentation in an effectively monocameral parliament meant who was in power was about parliamentary arithmetics that changed, on average, six times more often than people actually got to vote. It also put an unwholesome amount of power in minorities that could make or break a government over the more numerous (and therefore more representative) MPs that formed its backbone. And it was a system in which machiavellian politicians thrived best (see François Mitterrand, who managed to be a minister in every government of the 4th Republic after its constitution was ratified in 1946 and until the May 1958 coup).

 

Agreed, but as I say, I don't think you can just look at France as a sterling example of PR. You only have to listen to just how frustrated and unrepresented many British people feel in the UK, and when you crunch the numbers, how few seats actually determine the government. No elected representative government is perfect, that would be nothing short of miraculous.

Knowing your vote is meaningless every time you go to the polls is soul-destroying. And you end up with governments that don't reflect the vote. The Greens always do better under PR, and that is no bad thing: they held the balance of power in the Gillard government, for example. The main reason they don't make that critical breakthrough and actually win a majority is pretty self-evident here: mining. So whilst there are plenty of green-thinking people here, there are those who see mining as the ultimate decider. After all, mining has made this country very wealthy, and alas people can be very greedy.

 

Well, we certainly weren't a sterling example of PR; on the contrary, we were an example of how it can go wrong and collapse. I'll readily grant that it worked better than British FPTP does nowadays, though, now that an English party has established structural majority in enough of the UK's districts and has shed democratic beliefs.

 

Slovakia has a PR in a monocameral Parliament. It also has a limit - a party needs to get at least 5% of votes in order to have any seats in the Parliament. That keeps out tiny parties that are often single issue or have been set up just before a particular election.

However, a pure PR system has a weakness in that it can easily let in populist and/or extremist parties (case in point: we have 17 openly neo-Nazi MPs ). This is something that can't happen easily in a FPTP system - as seen in the UK, where is has been good in keeping the likes of BNP and UKIP out.

Also, coalitions are good, in the sense that parties are more forced to work together and compromise, but on the other hand it can be tricky to juggle a coalition of 4+ small parties.

Some kind of a hybrid system would probably be the best.

 

Whilst true, I don't think this current tory party are too far removed from some of their views though

 

Well, yes. That's what happens when a conservative party gets hijacked by an extreme right wing from within...

 

Lockdown 2 Pandemic Boogaloo has been leaked to the Mail and Times (in a way no one is surprised) with an annoucement from our pillock in chief due on Monday

The leak suggests the next lockdown will start on Wednesday and be for a minimum of 4-6 weeks


Had Johnson responded in line with SAGE recommendations in September with a 2-3 week lockdown we would not be where we are now. Nor would we be if he had actually got a proper Test and Trace system set up rather than the privatised run by Dido HArding at a cost of £12b failure that we do have.

I can see marches happening again (safe, socially distanced marches with people wearing masks though)

 

So the lockdown will conveniently end just in time for people to swarm shopping centres to get their Christmas shopping done. That's not going to be counterproductive at all.

 

If it’s been leaked, it’s going to happen. If it saves lives, then I’ll support it, but I agree that our current situation was not inevitable.

We’re going to see more job losses and businesses going under. If you liked 2020, you’re going to love 2021.

 

It's amazing how they've managed to do it and totally avoid half term.

I 100% agree with a lockdown but they need to ensure there is a proper support scheme in place (1-2 month UBI would be best) and get the Track and Trace thing sorted otherwise it's a long term waste of time (ignores the benefits to the NHS which is paramount right now though)

 

But are schools going to remain open? Because if they are, it's pointless.

Announcement at 4pm today- have they moved it a couple of days forward? (The announcement, not the lockdown)


Edit: clarity

 

Press conference has been moved to 5PM per BBC News.

 

Announcement on Monday, no 4pm Saturday, no move to 5pm.

They know the rule here, right? Thou Shalt Not Mess With Strictly.

 

Strictly is still in the BBC One lineup according to the Sky Guide - it says 710 PM start. Note that my TV magazine (Mail) had a 715 start so you may need to adjust accordingly.

 

BBC News now saying the briefing is delayed.