Cycling UK Forum

(I voted "Remain.")

The underlying problem in terms of UK politics was the decision to hold an IN/OUT referendum and then assuming parliament would deliver.

If it's not abundantly clear, I've no time for Boris Johnson but to be fair to him he delivered the OUT decision of the referendum "warts and all.".

I do know his track record both pre- and post-referendum but that's not the point.

Oldjohnw wrote: ↑1 Oct 2021, 8:34am I disagree with Lisa Nandy when she says that there is no desire for free movement. Iwish with all my heart that Labour had offered an alternative to Brexit. But the fact remains, Brexit has happened. It will be a couple of decades, realistically, before a reapplication could happen.

Meanwhile, I have to agree with Starmer that we have to make Brexit work. One obvious way is to apply for a single market such as enjoyed by Norway. Mad that we should be there: no say in what happens any more but abiding by rules and paying in. But infinitely better than the current and worsening shambles we have now.

The current and previous PMs had no clue. May had a couple of meaningless slogans, “The Brexit people voted for” and “No deal is better than a bad deal”. Johnson’s was, “Make Brexit happen”. Both meaningless utterances of complete idiocy, self inflicted wounds and nation destroying lunacy.

Spot on.
But the Tory donors and disaster capitalists are getting what they want so everything is hunky dory.

That's the Tories and capitalism for you....

thirdcrank wrote: ↑1 Oct 2021, 11:19am (I voted "Remain.")

The underlying problem in terms of UK politics was the decision to hold an IN/OUT referendum and then assuming parliament would deliver.

If it's not abundantly clear, I've no time for Boris Johnson but to be fair to him he delivered the OUT decision of the referendum "warts and all.".

I do know his track record both pre- and post-referendum but that's not the point.

TC
The point is he could have brokered a good deal for the UK but he didn't,that IMO makes him an enemy of the people!

pwa wrote: ↑1 Oct 2021, 8:19am I would not have voted for them if I had suspected they would do that. That is why they paid a big price for that later on. And that is the problem with PR. It ends up in dirty deals done late at night in private, resulting in distortions every bit as big as those that come from FPTP. You just get the distortions later in the process, and the process takes longer.

But under PR, those labour supporters could have happily voted labour (or for whatever labour fragment they want assuming it splits**) and not had to hold their nose to vote LD and subsequently get disappointed* when the LDs formed a coalition with the tories.

As for the coalition forming itself, that is also better as the parties have power proportional to their appeal to the general electorate. This is a huge contrast with FPTP where the balance of power of the un-easy preformed coalitions is primarily dependent on the tiny % who are members and they typically have rather more radical views than the general populace, hence trump, boris and corbyn.


*on that point, I get the sense amongst those who strongly identify with the GTTO movement that the tories can only ever be 1st preference or last. Actual views are far more subtle than that. If labour think LD/grn voters are going to nose hold as much as they did in 2017/19 I think that would be a huge mistake.

**3 parts? What's the third? Can see left and centre left parties, any unhappy centerists I suspect are more likely to defect to the LDs rather than a seperate centre party (though possibly with a renaming/rebanding exercise). Also while the bulk of the tories will stay as is, I do think they will shed some members to reform uk and possibly a couple to the centre, depends who ends up next leader.

Ben@Forest wrote: ↑1 Oct 2021, 8:07am

Carlton green wrote: ↑30 Sep 2021, 10:19pm Starmer will have his work cut out to win the next election, maybe a step too far, but I’d be very surprised if he didn’t slash the Tory majority. If he does win then one of the first things that he should do is to seek to change the voting system from first past the post to something that’s more democratic.

Why would he do that? It's generally reckoned that if we went down the PR route the Labour Party would split into at least three parties but the Conservatives less likely to do so (the major faultline may already have been exposed by the UKIP and Brexit parties). I'm sure Labour would be in power again as the majority party in a coalition but it would never be a 'big beast' again.

I'm not saying I disagree with PR - I would support it, but politics here seems to be so incredibly tribal and unforgiving of pragmatism (look at the way the LDs were treated after a surprisingly successful stint in coalition with the Conservatives) that the electorate would need to change its mindset. In Germany the equivalent of the Labour party has just won the general election after years of being in coalition with..... the Conservatives.

My change to bold type face above.

I’ve long suspected that that was why Labour refused to back the change, a change that would likely mean that they were never again in absolute control of Westminster. How short sighted and foolish of them ‘cause since then, at the moment and for the foreseeable future they have no influence in Westminster. As part of a coalition Government - see Germany for a working example of one and a very wealthy country - Labour would have influence and the fragmented hard left parts of it (Labour) would likely have wasted away / become irrelevant. Additionally how foolish of the Labour Party ‘cause just as they were likely to fragment so would the Tories, and hence opportunities to divide and manage political opponents would emerge.

Carlton green wrote: ↑1 Oct 2021, 9:35pm I’ve long suspected that that was why Labour refused to back the change, a change that would likely mean that they were never again in absolute control of Westminster. How short sighted and foolish of them ‘cause since then, at the moment and for the foreseeable future they have no influence in Westminster.

You've made this point before and I asked then what change are you talking about? You didn't reply so I'm asking again.
No government has offered an opportunity to change the UK parliamentary system to Proportional Representation (PR). There was a referendum on an Alternative Vote (AV), that's not the same, the Jenkins 90's commission suggested that system could produce less representative results than FPTP and Nick Clegg called it a miserable compromise, the Labour Party were split on it.
The PLP are wedded to the idea of constituency MP's and to some extent PR breaks that. There are ways that can be fudged, Jenkins proposed an AV plus system which went some way to addressing it, but that wasn't on offer in the coalition's referendum.

To my mind the first past the post system is functional but flawed, we can and should do better.

The referendum on changing the voting system was to some extent scuppered by the Tories before it was offered to the Nation. IMHO AV would have been a constructive step away from the first past the post system and towards towards proportional representation. The EU elections prove that it is possible to have PR, there are plenty of good models to explore, follow and to move towards.

IMHO the structure of voting should be about democracy and not about ensuring that one’s own party wins - or that some else’s doesn’t.

Having an MP linked to a constituency has a lot of value however I would question the degree to which the MP needs to be linked to the people voting in a constituency. A lot of MP’s are elected by say just 30% of the people eligible to vote yet the MP represents and does constituency work for the other 70% too.

A problem with FPTP, which until the current regime has never appeared, is Johnson using his majority to try to remain in power. Here are a few of he things he has proposed:

- limiting JR
- stopping the independent judiciary from reviewing parliamentary actions
- bringing the Electoral Commission into political/ministerial control
- voter ID to solve a non-existent problem. We know this limits electoral participation, especially with the poor as there are additional hurdles to overcome.
- limiting campaigning activity to politically approved objectives
- bringing the Charity Commission into political control
-giving the police the ability to stop marches and protests and arrest people if they consider others might be inconvenienced.

All of this has been formally proposed. Some in a Queen’s Speech.

But still people support both the government and the system.

Oldjohnw wrote: ↑2 Oct 2021, 8:30am A problem with FPTP, which until the current regime has never appeared, is Johnson using his majority to try to remain in power. Here are a few of he things he has proposed:

- limiting JR
- stopping the independent judiciary from reviewing parliamentary actions
- bringing the Electoral Commission into political/ministerial control
- voter ID to solve a non-existent problem. We know this limits electoral participation, especially with the poor as there are additional hurdles to overcome.
- limiting campaigning activity to politically approved objectives
- bringing the Charity Commission into political control
-giving the police the ability to stop marches and protests and arrest people if they consider others might be inconvenienced.

All of this has been formally proposed. Some in a Queen’s Speech.

And in this thread it's worth remembering that views on these are not necessarily differentiated Left-Right or by political party. These are issues of authoritarianism.

Jonathan

Carlton green wrote: ↑2 Oct 2021, 7:59am To my mind the first past the post system is functional but flawed, we can and should do better.

The referendum on changing the voting system was to some extent scuppered by the Tories before it was offered to the Nation. IMHO AV would have been a constructive step away from the first past the post system and towards towards proportional representation. The EU elections prove that it is possible to have PR, there are plenty of good models to explore, follow and to move towards.

IMHO the structure of voting should be about democracy and not about ensuring that one’s own party wins - or that some else’s doesn’t.

Having an MP linked to a constituency has a lot of value however I would question the degree to which the MP needs to be linked to the people voting in a constituency. A lot of MP’s are elected by say just 30% of the people eligible to vote yet the MP represents and does constituency work for the other 70% too.

Spot on.

reohn2 wrote: ↑2 Oct 2021, 9:23am

Carlton green wrote: ↑2 Oct 2021, 7:59am To my mind the first past the post system is functional but flawed, we can and should do better.

The referendum on changing the voting system was to some extent scuppered by the Tories before it was offered to the Nation. IMHO AV would have been a constructive step away from the first past the post system and towards towards proportional representation. The EU elections prove that it is possible to have PR, there are plenty of good models to explore, follow and to move towards.

IMHO the structure of voting should be about democracy and not about ensuring that one’s own party wins - or that some else’s doesn’t.

Having an MP linked to a constituency has a lot of value however I would question the degree to which the MP needs to be linked to the people voting in a constituency. A lot of MP’s are elected by say just 30% of the people eligible to vote yet the MP represents and does constituency work for the other 70% too.

Spot on.

This was always the case, but I fear that increasingly the MP is only acting on behalf of those who voted for the government. This appears to be since the Brexit vote: “You lost, get over it”, rather than,”Ok, you didn’t get what you wished for but let’s now work together”.

A problem with FPTP, which until the current regime has never appeared, .... (My bold)

I think I understand the point you are making but the bit I've highlighted seems to imply that ancient traditions are now being usurped and this not entirely the case eg judicial review in it's present form is quite a recent development. Also previous governments of every stripe have introduced changes thought to be advantageous to them eg Tony's crony AKA the cheerful chappy Baron Falconer tweaked the postal voting system.

This isn't to defend Boris Johnson, just to say they are all pretty much the same imo

Oldjohnw wrote: ↑2 Oct 2021, 8:30am A problem with FPTP, which until the current regime has never appeared, is Johnson using his majority to try to remain in power. Here are a few of he things he has proposed:

- limiting JR
- stopping the independent judiciary from reviewing parliamentary actions
- bringing the Electoral Commission into political/ministerial control
- voter ID to solve a non-existent problem. We know this limits electoral participation, especially with the poor as there are additional hurdles to overcome.
- limiting campaigning activity to politically approved objectives
- bringing the Charity Commission into political control
-giving the police the ability to stop marches and protests and arrest people if they consider others might be inconvenienced.

All of this has been formally proposed. Some in a Queen’s Speech.

This is the evil of the Tory party and particularly in the form of this government.

But still people support both the government and the system.

Which says a lot about those people and the corrupt nature of a government with a large majority will to spew any amount of lies to remain in power for their's and their finaciers own ends

thirdcrank wrote: ↑2 Oct 2021, 9:30am

A problem with FPTP, which until the current regime has never appeared, .... (My bold)

I think I understand the point you are making but the bit I've highlighted seems to imply that ancient traditions are now being usurped and this not entirely the case eg judicial review in it's present form is quite a recent development. Also previous governments of every stripe have introduced changes thought to be advantageous to them eg Tony's crony AKA the cheerful chappy Baron Falconer tweaked the postal voting system.

This isn't to defend Boris Johnson, just to say they are all pretty much the same imo

And is why a PR system is a far more democratic system of government.

Carlton green wrote: ↑2 Oct 2021, 7:59am To my mind the first past the post system is functional but flawed, we can and should do better.
The referendum on changing the voting system was to some extent scuppered by the Tories before it was offered to the Nation. IMHO AV would have been a constructive step away from the first past the post system and towards towards proportional representation. The EU elections prove that it is possible to have PR, there are plenty of good models to explore, follow and to move towards.

I don't want to get too far into the merits or otherwise of the different models, I'd just like you to stop repeating that Labour opposed an opportunity to introduce PR, whish is inaccurate on both counts: It wasn't PR and the Party was split. The proposal for a referendum on AV came from the Labour Party, it was in the 2010 manifesto, the Tories matched it in the coalition deal. I also disagree that it might have been a step towards something else, if we'd changed, the chance of changing again would be unlikely for a generation or two.
Here is what the Jenkins commission said on AV "far from doing much to relieve disproportionality, it is capable of substantially adding to it"
I voted against, not because I support FPTP, but because this didn't look like an improvement and IMO would scupper any chance of getting one. I don't mind that others may disagree, just ask that they do so with accuracy.