Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
johnh

General Election

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, johnh said:

Assuming Brexit now happens, Remainer's do have a major consolation.  At least they now know that 'democracy' has prevailed.  We came very close to destroying it.

Post of the year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RPG said:

Indeed. But we moved on from 'Tripwire' through 'MAD' to 'Graduated Response' over the years as the threats and our capability to respond to them have evolved. But, throughout the evolution of the threats, it has been our independent nuclear deterrent and our NATO membership that has ensured our security from nuclear attack.

 

Same basic principle, not to undermine the importance of NATO 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MikeO said:

It did indeed, well at least our version of it.

"Labour will certainly lose a lot of seats (as many as 90) in the north to the brexit party as Labour 'Remain' MPs representing solid 'Leave' constituencies are booted out. I think Labour will also lose some seats to the Lib Dems in the south, meaning that Labour could finish third or even fourth behind Conservative, Lib Dems and Brexit Party."

:doh:

You raise a good point. Of course, the post you quote me on was made before Farage withdrew from contesting over 300 seats which would have risked splitting the Leave vote. I was concerned that it may have been a gamble too far by Farage but it seems that the working class vote in the north that I predicted would turn to the Brexit Party actually preferred the Conservative Party to Labour once Farage took the Brexit Party option off the table. That really underscores the depth of the problems in the Labour Party.

I certainly didn't expect a circa 80 seat working majority but the fact that it has happened is as much down to Labour having a terrible campaign as it is down to the Conservative's having a good one. Once the dust settles, a lot of introspection should take place in the Labour Party as we do need a credible opposition. And, right now, we don't have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Matt said:

True, but it’s the actual democratic system, as fucked up as it actually is. 

Indeed. The other anomaly is that (on 2017 figures) our constituencies range in size in terms of electorate from 21,769 to 110,697, so that's another example of some being more equal than others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RPG said:

Can I ask how you justify that statement when, by far, the vast majority of new votes for the Conservative Party in GE19 have come from working class constituencies who have previously nearly always voted Labour? Workington, Bolsover, Blyth, and many more.

It is the working class that won this election for the Conservative Party.

Your just a cunt end of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Your just a cunt end of. 

Time for another glass of champagne on you pal. Cheers!

When your brain finally catches up with your pride you might realise what a foul mouthed failure of a bully you are who has done neither himself nor his cause any credit whatsoever. But do, please, continue digging your hole. It is so entertaining.

The vast majority of Red to Blue seats last night were in northern constituencies, previously considered to be Labour bastions. Instead of trying to shoot the messenger, why don't you ask yourself why working class constituencies kicked Labour out and voted Conservative?

Or is that just another inconvenient issue you can't handle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Your just a cunt end of. 

Palfy, come on now. This is going too far, reel yourself in please. One or two posts of anger and frustration I get but this isn’t the first or second time. Less of the personal insults please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Indeed. The other anomaly is that (on 2017 figures) our constituencies range in size in terms of electorate from 21,769 to 110,697, so that's another example of some being more equal than others.

Quite fitting with the government that’s in charge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Indeed. The other anomaly is that (on 2017 figures) our constituencies range in size in terms of electorate from 21,769 to 110,697, so that's another example of some being more equal than others.

The current anomaly of constituency sizes considerably benefits Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, johnh said:

It's amazing how the loser's always fall back on proportional representation.

I’ve not lost anything, so no idea what you’re talking about there. I’ve maintained a belief of direct democracy for years, proportional representation isn’t ideal but it’s a lot better and more fundamentally a truer type of democracy than FPTP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, johnh said:

It's amazing how the loser's always fall back on proportional representation.

So do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes? That's indefensible for me.

30 minutes ago, johnh said:

The current anomaly of constituency sizes considerably benefits Labour.

I wasn't being political one way or another John, just pointing out another thing that I personally think is wrong with the archaic way we elect our government.

Good to have you back by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Matt said:

Palfy, come on now. This is going too far, reel yourself in please. One or two posts of anger and frustration I get but this isn’t the first or second time. Less of the personal insults please. 

Can’t stand the man, if you can call him a man. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Palfy said:

That’s not going to change my mind on what I think him, he’s a prick. 

I tried. Keep your opinion to yourself in this instance, it’s been aired enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Indeed. The other anomaly is that (on 2017 figures) our constituencies range in size in terms of electorate from 21,769 to 110,697, so that's another example of some being more equal than others.

Agreed. But it works both ways. Those saying that the SNP taking 48/59 seats in Scotland makes the case for IndyRef2 should also be aware that these seats were taken with less than 50% of the popular vote - which kind of destroys the argument for IndyRef2 if you apply the same logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RPG said:

Agreed. But it works both ways. Those saying that the SNP taking 48/59 seats in Scotland makes the case for IndyRef2 should also be aware that these seats were taken with less than 50% of the popular vote - which kind of destroys the argument for IndyRef2 if you apply the same logic.

Maybe so, but they voted with a clear majority in the referendum (60/40 if I remember correctly) so I’d say there’s more reason than ever for them to want to uncouple themselves from a union dictated by foreigners 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the hell happened to the DUP by the way? NI another that voted majority to remain, then took a bribe and got fucked by their allies. NIndyRef next? (I should copyright that and make a fortune)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Matt said:

Maybe so, but they voted with a clear majority in the referendum (60/40 if I remember correctly) so I’d say there’s more reason than ever for them to want to uncouple themselves from a union dictated by foreigners 

It is certainly a valid basis of debate, I agree. But I wonder how an IndyRef2 vote would play out as by no means all voters in Scotland viewed the election as IndyRef, I think, like England, it was Brexit dominated. But trying to square that circle is impossible as I just can't see how Scotland can remain a part of UK and also remain in EU. If push comes to shove I think (though am not entirely confident) that the choice would be to remain in UK if the price of remaining in EU was to leave UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Matt said:

What the hell happened to the DUP by the way? NI another that voted majority to remain, then took a bribe and got fucked by their allies. NIndyRef next? (I should copyright that and make a fortune)

I think I heard an MP in Scotland last night (sorry, can't remember which one) saying that dealing with the issue of a United Ireland will be an issue before IndyRef2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RPG said:

It is certainly a valid basis of debate, I agree. But I wonder how an IndyRef2 vote would play out as by no means all voters in Scotland viewed the election as IndyRef, I think, like England, it was Brexit dominated. But trying to square that circle is impossible as I just can't see how Scotland can remain a part of UK and also remain in EU. If push comes to shove I think (though am not entirely confident) that the choice would be to remain in UK if the price of remaining in EU was to leave UK.

They take the Euro, become the border control point to bring additional income whilst benefiting from the EU who will give bigger debates to show solidarity whilst NI gets further fucked and ends up uniting the whole of Ireland. Maybe it’ll all work out ok in the end...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Matt said:

They take the Euro, become the border control point to bring additional income whilst benefiting from the EU who will give bigger debates to show solidarity whilst NI gets further fucked and ends up uniting the whole of Ireland. Maybe it’ll all work out ok in the end...

The EU would have to alter its rules to allow that to happen. At the moment an 'independent' Scotland would not come anywhere near close to meeting the criteria to even apply to join EU. But yes, EU could always give it a waiver. It might be a precedent that would bite EU in the ass later though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, RPG said:

The EU would have to alter its rules to allow that to happen. At the moment an 'independent' Scotland would not come anywhere near close to meeting the criteria to even apply to join EU. But yes, EU could always give it a waiver. It might be a precedent that would bite EU in the ass later though.

No they wouldn’t. England, NI and Wales would have to. It’s the whole discussion about the hard border again, just this time on the island instead of in NI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Matt said:

No they wouldn’t. England, NI and Wales would have to. It’s the whole discussion about the hard border again, just this time on the island instead of in NI

Maybe I have missed something but my understanding is that Scotland wouldn't meet the financial criteria to apply.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/25/would-brussels-even-allow-independent-scotland-join-eu/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Matt said:

Dated 8 months ago by the Torygraph? Come on now 

The date is irrelevant. EU rules haven't changed in the last 8 months and I don't think there has been any change in attitudes - apart from maybe a hardening of pre existing one's.

What would be nice is if the people that tried to reject democracy once already (Referendum) would not try to reject it twice (GE19). Not a pop at anyone on this board - just a general statement. Otherwise we descend into mob rule and anarchy - which I know would suit some but UK is a democracy and that is not the way things are done. The riots in Leeds and London yesterday and Gina Miller having a hissy fit won't achieve anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Matt said:

Out of all of this, one positive is that seems Boris has found his hairbrush...

Yes, he looked most Prime Ministerial, didn't he. I thought his victory speech was just right too - Triumphant but also magnanimous. Brexit will happen but we need to unite the country. He acknowledged all the votes he got from ex Labour voters and assured them he would listen to them and not let them down. In fact, I think he is touring the North today to say thank you and to discuss the way forward.

Smart move.

https://www.bbc.com/news/election-2019-50790445

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Palfy said:

The first to lose there job in Boris’s cabinet reshuffle should be Rees Mogg, should there even be a place in the world for people like him, the far right need to be cast away from the Tory party. 

'Minor changes' only according to all reports so far. Boris has such a majority that he could go one of several ways and it will be interesting to see how or even if he changes his cabinet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parliament had we used a modern electoral model rather than one instigated in 1884....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-results-pr-alternative-voting-system-tories-labour-hung-a9246661.html

'Analysis of results by the Electoral Reform Society shows the Conservatives would have won 77 fewer seats under the regional list proportional representation method of voting.

While Labour would have won 10 more seats and the Greens another 11, the Liberal Democrats would have been the biggest beneficiaries by taking 59 more seats.

The proportional representation system used in our European parliament elections would have left the Tories with only 288 seats, the largest party in a hung parliament – leaving open the possibility of a “rainbow” coalition government.

The pressure group claimed the “broken” first-past-the-post system was now “warping our politics beyond recognition,” arguing a change was now needed to allow millions of disenchanted voters to feel better represented.'

 

Capture.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MikeO said:

The deeper you look the more absurd it gets, SNP get 48 members with 1,242,380 votes and the Greens get 1 to represent 865,697. The Mad Hatters tea party made more sense than this.

Before PR (which has been rejected by the electorate) we need to sort out the anomalies in FPTP.  Rationalising constituencies. Scotland is a  huge anomaly but the main objection comes from Labour who benefit from the current situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, johnh said:

Before PR (which has been rejected by the electorate) we need to sort out the anomalies in FPTP.  Rationalising constituencies. Scotland is a  huge anomaly but the main objection comes from Labour who benefit from the current situation.

An extremely watered down version of PR was voted down by the electorate with both major parties campaigning against it so no great surprise; as I keep saying, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. You've still not answered my earlier question to you though John (and I quote), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?" You can add to that the Greens getting one MP when 865,697 voted for them.

Googling suggests the current boundaries give Labour about an extra 15 seats, a very minor amount in comparison to the changes PR would bring. We don't need to sort out anomalies in FPTP, we need to bin it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, MikeO said:

Parliament had we used a modern electoral model rather than one instigated in 1884....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/general-election-results-pr-alternative-voting-system-tories-labour-hung-a9246661.html

'Analysis of results by the Electoral Reform Society shows the Conservatives would have won 77 fewer seats under the regional list proportional representation method of voting.

While Labour would have won 10 more seats and the Greens another 11, the Liberal Democrats would have been the biggest beneficiaries by taking 59 more seats.

The proportional representation system used in our European parliament elections would have left the Tories with only 288 seats, the largest party in a hung parliament – leaving open the possibility of a “rainbow” coalition government.

The pressure group claimed the “broken” first-past-the-post system was now “warping our politics beyond recognition,” arguing a change was now needed to allow millions of disenchanted voters to feel better represented.'

 

Capture.JPG

Since studying Government and Politics in college I've been a supporter of PR. It's the fairest system as far as I can see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a stat to compare the unfairness of 1st pass the post to Proportional Representation. 
LibDems polled 4% more votes and lost seats while the Tories polled 1% more votes yet gained 40 more seats, does anyone think that’s a fair system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Keith B said:

Trend appears to be against those of us on the left. But don't stop fighting. Even in the US, we may lose in 2020, but I am optimistic that we are on the correct side of things.

We won’t stop fighting Keith, there’s to much to lose if we do. 
Those in this country who sold their beliefs for Brexit , I strongly believe will regret that decision in the not so distant future 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Palfy said:

Just a stat to compare the unfairness of 1st pass the post to Proportional Representation. 
LibDems polled 4% more votes and lost seats while the Tories polled 1% more votes yet gained 40 more seats, does anyone think that’s a fair system?

The problem is the top 2 parties in this country will never agree to it for fear of losing out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour shadow cabinet look like they are gearing up to appoint one of their own to be the new leader in Rebecca Long-Bailey with the possibility of Burgon as deputy. 

I find it completely demoralising that they would rally behind her when you have someone like Yvette Cooper in the backbenches who is 10 times the politician of those two idiots put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bailey said:

Labour shadow cabinet look like they are gearing up to appoint one of their own to be the new leader in Rebecca Long-Bailey with the possibility of Burgon as deputy. 

I find it completely demoralising that they would rally behind her when you have someone like Yvette Cooper in the backbenches who is 10 times the politician of those two idiots put together.

Jess Phillips would eat Johnson alive every single PM's questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bailey said:

The problem is the top 2 parties in this country will never agree to it for fear of losing out. 

Neither will the electorate.  Rejected by a significant majority in the relevant referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, holystove said:

Jess Phillips would eat Johnson alive every single PM's questions.

I agree.

I don't particularly like her but I can recognise that she is a more than competent MP who won't just parrot the party slogans like most MP's do these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, johnh said:

Neither will the electorate.  Rejected by a significant majority in the relevant referendum.

Because the majority of the electorate are tory and labour voters who don't want a fair system because it'll stop their duopoly.

And (for the third time of asking), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?"

Are you related to Michael Howard?;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Because the majority of the electorate are tory and labour voters who don't want a fair system because it'll stop their duopoly.

And (for the third time of asking), "do you really think it's a fair and equitable system when that the Tories got an MP for every 38,000 votes cast and the LibDems got one for every 332,500 votes?"

Are you related to Michael Howard?;)

 

Well the starting rules are the same for everyone.  Maybe the LibDems need a manifesto which attracts more votes in areas where they have no success.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, johnh said:

Well the starting rules are the same for everyone.  Maybe the LibDems need a manifesto which attracts more votes in areas where they have no success.  

So you are related to Michael Howard then😂. You obviously can't answer, "yes of course it's fair" because it self evidently isn't and you won't answer, "no, it's not fair" because you like it the way it is. Fair enough, I won't ask again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MikeO said:

So you are related to Michael Howard then😂. You obviously can't answer, "yes of course it's fair" because it self evidently isn't and you won't answer, "no, it's not fair" because you like it the way it is. Fair enough, I won't ask again.

I think the point that might be being made, quite rightly and very gently, is that complaining about the rules of the election after defeat may be classed as sour grapes.

The rules are the rules and they are the same for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MikeO said:

So you are related to Michael Howard then😂. You obviously can't answer, "yes of course it's fair" because it self evidently isn't and you won't answer, "no, it's not fair" because you like it the way it is. Fair enough, I won't ask again.

Mike, I gave a response but for some reason you chose not to address it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, johnh said:

Mike, I gave a response but for some reason you chose not to address it?

You gave a response but you didn't answer my question, you gave a "politicians answer" i.e. a deflection. 

As to the suggestion that I'm complaining because I don't like the result; I've been complaining about our electoral system for more than forty years so I see no reason to stop now. And it's not just about the LibDems, it's not fair that the Greens and (holds nose) the Brexit party have minimal/zero representation when they got more than 1.5 million votes between them, the tories got forty seats for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...