There is a hidden extra in PR and multiple seat constituencies, which you are omitting. . Voter engagement. If 10% of the people are flat earth creationists, then 5% of your parliament will typically contain flat earthers . This means it is broadly representative. There is a built in bonus for mainstream candidates which slightly favours common sense. However the looney left ,the looney right do get a look in.,and have the opportunity to make contributions. Coilitions are good.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Agreed, but they used to support the idea of PR, though admittedly when they didn't have such a dominant position. And they had already accepted a reduction of the number of Westminster seats with the Scottish parliament independence and their independence has substantially increased since so their number of Westminster seats diminished in importance. However there's always the possibility of them becoming independent which would increase the pressure for PR for the remainder on whichever government was in power. PR or the threat of further breakup of the union.
.
Starmer hasn't got what it takes to be a successful politician. The look of a rabbit caught in the headlights is no substitute for the essential bluff of relaxed self assurance that politicians rely on.
The near impossibility of Labour winning the next GE without the Scottish vote, plus Tory media sabotage, means that even if Labour does much better he will still lose, and thus lose the backing of the Corbyn faction.
It will probably be Corbyn's 2017 GE result over again. Remember, Corbyn got close then, enough to frighten the Tories, hence them jacking up the abusive lies and smears for the 2019 election of him being a communist, Marxist, Trotskyite and anti-semitic to keep him out in the cold.
.
your view of Starmer is as negative as my view of Corbyn.
Starmer may look a little stuck up at the dispatch box but his word is recorded and consistent.
Johnson gets away with bluster, bluff and lies but when reality bites, people will come back to Starmer's principled approach.
If only that were true.
I'm afraid the record of how long principled PMs since WW2 survive is very poor:
Clement Attlee, Alec Douglas-Home and John Major were undoubtedly very principled. Anthony Eden, Edward Heath and Gordon Brown were arguably principled and honest in office.
Now look at the record of the bluff and bluster two faced crowd:
Winston Churchill, Harold Wilson, Harold Macmillan, James Callaghan, Tony Blair and Boris Johnson. I could arguably add Margaret Thatcher and David Cameron too since both hid behind a principled facade that they weren't true to.
The public invariably fall for the latter group's apparent charms, even repeatedly.
.
Last edited:
I'll have made a proper ash of myself by then!
I have a cunning plan
Seal the ashes into the back of one of my canvasses
Always fancied being well hung...
I have always had a good regard for John Major, ... Tempered only by his dalliance with that egg lady.
Hmm, but its supposed to be all over by the 21st June, isn't it?
And then they'll desperately WANT a big distraction from the inquiry...
Scottish independence referendum battle is ‘big distraction’ from Covid, says Gove
And then they'll desperately WANT a big distraction from the inquiry...
Scottish independence referendum battle is ‘big distraction’ from Covid, says Gove
Yes, that was Edwina Currie. It was strangely out of character for John Major.
.
There is of course the point that with no viable opposition , the Tories are left with the case of a man who steals another man's wife, and gets rather more than he bargained for.
Thus it is with Brexit
At the start there are no problems only promises and opportunities, and the punters had their "win"
It works for a while until someone fails to find the opportunities, but still keeps making promises
When Brexit hit's bottom where and how are they going to bury the evidence?
The usual fascist way is to find an enemy to blame...Scotland and independence will do nicely
Thus it is with Brexit
At the start there are no problems only promises and opportunities, and the punters had their "win"
It works for a while until someone fails to find the opportunities, but still keeps making promises
When Brexit hit's bottom where and how are they going to bury the evidence?
The usual fascist way is to find an enemy to blame...Scotland and independence will do nicely
There'll be such excuses for a while, but I think as the difficulties crop up up we'll gradually make concessions and creep back into closer union bit by bit, perhaps saving face by eventually joining EFTA rather than returning to the EU.
.
I see the tories are seeing now is the time to have the big distraction of changing the voting system for mayors - because they lost.
Lying, cheating, disgusting scum party.
Lying, cheating, disgusting scum party.
DOMINIC LAWSON: Under Labour, unions would jump the vaccine queue
DOMINIC LAWSON: When solidarity and fairness are displayed by the Conservatives, rather than Labour, no wonder Hartlepool chose blue over red; and no wonder Keir Starmer seems confused.
Yes, I know it's the Mail with all that entails but the opinion and facts within article explain exactly why Labour have lost so badly and what people really think about unions. Starmer realised, rather too late, sacked the person for the mentioned policy and look what happens. More division within party.
The elephant in the room everybody chooses to ignore is the power Unions have over Labour. Lose that and they might recover.
And Oyster, calling people Scum doesn't help, think it actually makes things worse for Labour. Folk making those comments, breaking windows and throwing things at MPs tarnish entire Labour Party. It's part of their path to oblivion.
It produces polarisation, and that's last thing you want when not in power. It's again playing into Tory hands, polarise the electorate, set opinions in stone when you have an 80 seat majority. Not very clever is it. Which sums Labour up at moment.
Last edited:
The irony is that when they were forced to re-establish the GLC because they made a mess of trying to run London, they rigged the present voting system in the hope of it benefitting themselves. It didn't work then since we voted Labour back in twice before they were finally able to briefly grab power.
They've even tried to influence the vote in this one, while voting was still going on getting the media to report that the Tory candidate was very close to Sadiq Khan. He wasn't, he was a full 10% behind. And that was only because London's Labour turnout to vote is famously very low. Because everyone knows London is Labour, people don't bother to turn out unless it gets desperate, like when Boris Johnson won and made a mess. I still remember one election long ago when the overall turnout was 18.2%. Less than one in five had bothered to vote !
.
I didn't call people scum. I called the tory party a scum party. (You appear content with the rest of the description "Lying, cheating, disgusting".)
They can't lose that Zlatan, as I've expained before, the Labour party was formed out of trade unionism and the unions have to be their paymasters. It takes lots of money to run a political party and unlike the Tories, the party has few wealthy private backers.
They can only lose the trade unions if they lose the Labour name as well, but if they are the same people, would anyone believe them? And would the Tory media machine let the people believe them? The answer to both of those is an emphatic NO.
The best they could do would be like the 2017 GE result, looking much better but still far short of a win without the Scottish vote that they used to enjoy. We don't have a Labour electorate in England that's anything like sufficient to win without Scottish and Welsh Labour dominance.
.
Splitting hairs, point made in post still applies. You are polarizing peoples opinions at a time when Tories have a massive majority, both in house of commons and with electorate opinion. It is a stupid but much used strategy by elements of labour party. In any walk of life insulting opposition is almost guaranteed counter productive. In politics even more so.
Fair point, but the Union control could be reduced. If anything Union control has increased. McCluskey has way more power than is generally assumed. He is almost the king maker within the party. It was his support for Ed over David that set the party on its deeper swing to left. McCluskey still supports Corbyn and sees Starmer as Blair Junior... Hence current problems.
As far back as sixties Wilson thought it necessary to curb powers of Union which to some extent he achieved.
The Labour Party needs Union funding as Tories need their contributions but the power Unions hold over Labour is far greater almost by definition. It's a Union, Unite is biggest in Europe (I believe). Tory funding is more fragmented and hence less direct control. The formation of Unite was in my mind a political mistake. Unions should be diverse, representing individual groups and not a political body to exert control directly of electorate via a Party
The Unions are getting 2 bites of cherry as its organised. They chose Labour leader and then walk to polling booth and vote for same person. That can't be right.
People, rightly or wrongly, do not want unions controlling power. Assume we got a Labour Government. McCluskey becomes most powerful person in the country. Because he is head of Unite and as far as electorate concerned not democratically elected. That is wrong.
The "real Labour" party should represent electorate and not union members. (as was explained in Dominic Lawson article)
Last edited:
Apologies, I, m on a roll now.
I really believe this is fundamentally wrong. It's saying you can't really be a socialist and join Labour Party without being in a Union.
I hated much of the union activity I saw whilst employed. I hated the attitudes and the methods... But strongly believed in Socialism. They are not the same thing. So why must I be a Union member (to be fair I don't now) to have a say who leads Labour Party.
And the attachment smacks of indoctrination. Then we wonder why Labour are floundering and blame current leader.
(not to mention fact that in UK only 23% of workers are in a Union, then begs the question is this rule to benefit Unions and McCluskey or the Labour Party)
Last edited:
Johnson could so easily have avoided this...
Boris Johnson being investigated over Caribbean holiday and flat renovation
Parliamentary commissioner for standards reveals two probes - with powers that can lead to suspensions of MPs for serious breaches
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-flat-investigation-caribbean-b1844812.html
Unless he really has something to hide.
Boris Johnson being investigated over Caribbean holiday and flat renovation
Parliamentary commissioner for standards reveals two probes - with powers that can lead to suspensions of MPs for serious breaches
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-flat-investigation-caribbean-b1844812.html
Unless he really has something to hide.