What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[RedRobin]

On a very different slant, it is rather disturbing to see police snipers on the rooftops during a political party conference, a sad part of modern day life.

....Are you aware of the IRA bombing of the Conservative Party Conference at Brighton? That is reason enough to provide full security measures and also there are still plenty of nutters and terrorists about who would be a security risk. I expect that if Corbyn's party was in power full security measures would be provided at their conference.

 

[eeyore]

For anyone to turn up en masse and in protest outside the party conference of a rival is very bad form indeed in my opinion, but I am not surprised by such behaviour from Corbyn and his mob whether behaving peacefully or otherwise. What was the purpose? To protest that a conference was being held?

Anti austerity protest. Something corbyn supports. So not real issue him being there. Most party conferences have protests. It's nothing new and is a good way for people to get view points over.

 

[RedRobin]

I've not read through most of this, but I will say it's an interesting time in politics and like him or loathe him there is far more discussion at present.

For all the he'll never get in, I'm not so sure. I posted earlier in the thread I thought he was hopeless on question time when I saw him, but his different approach is refreshing.

It will be interesting how he deals with the inevitable compromises he will have to get into to. You can keep your views without breaking from the opposition backbenches easily, a lot harder to do when leading your party. He seems at present to be saying he will lead by consensus, which seems unlikely to work but as I say interesting times ahead.

....Indeed a very interesting time although I think that Corbyn could polarise politics in a way which isn't necessarily good for the country as a whole.

He is playing on the inevitable unpopularity which every government in power, or in fact anyone in any position of power, suffers. Perversely entertaining as Corbyn is I don't feel the need for his brand of 'refreshment' in Parliament. But others will of course disagree.

 

[rjbell]

....Indeed a very interesting time although I think that Corbyn could polarise politics in a way which isn't necessarily good for the country as a whole.

He is playing on the inevitable unpopularity which every government in power, or in fact anyone in any position of power, suffers. Perversely entertaining as Corbyn is I don't feel the need for his brand of 'refreshment' in Parliament. But others will of course disagree.

The polarising is inevitable as the tories move further and further to the right. This is or was happening anyway Its not Corbyn doing it. He's what some people are hoping is the answer not the cause.

 

[Llamaman]

The polarising is inevitable as the tories move further and further to the right. This is or was happening anyway Its not Corbyn doing it. He's what some people are hoping is the answer not the cause.

Labour were also moving to the left before Corbyn, Blair->Brown->Miliband was a progression away from New Labour back to the unions. Corbyn is just completing the transition back to the original Labour movement. Not an ideology I share, but at least it's true to the founding ideals of the party and it's union roots.

If there was any sense in politics, Labour would now split, with 'new Labour' supporters forming their own progressive centrist party. They'd probably mop up the last few Lib Dems and maybe one or two Tories.
It won't happen though, as the 2-party mindset of British politics (a lot of which is due to the mechanics of FPTP) discourages smaller parties and instead favours 'broad churches'. As a result, we get the ridiculous position of Ken Clarke and John Redwood being in the same party, and likewise Jeremy Corbyn sharing a party with Liz Kendall.


How long before we recognize that this position is untenable? IMHO a broader spectrum of parties, working together to find a majority consensus on issues would deliver far better government than a monolithic duopoly ruled by fear of the three-line whip. It's why I feel electoral reform is needed and hopefully Labour are now coming round to the same position - one they would then share with the SNP, Lib Dems, UKIP, and Greens - who together would represent a 60% majority of voters (if not seats).

 

[dejongj]

Yes, I agree with all of that. ^^^^

 

[Cobra]

On a very different slant, it is rather disturbing to see police snipers on the rooftops during a political party conference,

And yet they still get in

 

[AHILL]

How long before we recognize that this position is untenable? IMHO a broader spectrum of parties, working together to find a majority consensus on issues would deliver far better government than a monolithic duopoly ruled by fear of the three-line whip. It's why I feel electoral reform is needed and hopefully Labour are now coming round to the same position - one they would then share with the SNP, Lid Dems, UKIP, and Greens - who together would represent a 60% majority of voters (if not seats).

I see its time for the electoral reform movement to raise their heads above the parapet for a whinge now labour has screwed up. LOL

 

[RedRobin]

Labour were also moving to the left before Corbyn, Blair->Brown->Miliband was a progression away from New Labour back to the unions. Corbyn is just completing the transition back to the original Labour movement. Not an ideology I share, but at least it's true to the founding ideals of the party and it's union roots.

If there was any sense in politics, Labour would now split, with 'new Labour' supporters forming their own progressive centrist party. They'd probably mop up the last few Lib Dems and maybe one or two Tories.
It won't happen though, as the 2-party mindset of British politics (a lot of which is due to the mechanics of FPTP) discourages smaller parties and instead favours 'broad churches'. As a result, we get the ridiculous position of Ken Clarke and John Redwood being in the same party, and likewise Jeremy Corbyn sharing a party with Liz Kendall.


How long before we recognize that this position is untenable? IMHO a broader spectrum of parties, working together to find a majority consensus on issues would deliver far better government than a monolithic duopoly ruled by fear of the three-line whip. It's why I feel electoral reform is needed and hopefully Labour are now coming round to the same position - one they would then share with the SNP, Lid Dems, UKIP, and Greens - who together would represent a 60% majority of voters (if not seats).

....I agree that a broader spectrum of parties working together could be a good thing (as long as the Tories were included!). However, human beings being what they are I can't see such a structure managing to fully function and I am sure there would be constant infighting and struggles to gain power amongst them. The ideals of rightwing and leftwing policies are often too fundamentally opposed. In effect you would be suggesting a multi-party coalition and looking at some such foreign governments this does not work well.

 

[Llamaman]

Yes, I agree with all of that. ^^^^

That's because you're an intelligent, thoughtful person

 

[Llamaman]

I see its time for the electoral reform movement to raise their heads above the parapet for a whinge now labour has screwed up. LOL

We've been around since 1884...

 

[jakeblu]

Yet 20% more votes then the next nearest party whose members are behaving disgustingly in Manchester, spitting and threatening conservative conference goers. Even rape threats. What is wrong with them. Yet Corbyn and the unions see it fit to go there and address that rude unruly crowd.

But less than 25% of the eligible vote.

 

[Llamaman]

But less than 25% of the eligible vote.

Non-cast votes are meaningless.

 

[jakeblu]

Non-cast votes are meaningless.

They're still the eligible electorate, no one knows their views because they were either foolish not to vote or most likely disenfranchised. This could either be because of the idealogical hegemony in British politics or the fact that for many, whether they vote or not in an election, makes not the slightest difference because of the electoral system.

 

[RedRobin]

Surely it's a futile exercise to quote vote percentages after the event. In most cases, doing so only serves to falsely convince the loser that they had won.

 

[jakeblu]

Surely it's a futile exercise to quote vote percentages after the event. In most cases, doing so only serves to falsely convince the loser that they had won.

No it doesn't, it points out the weakness of the mandate the winner believes they have.

 

[Llamaman]

They're still the eligible electorate, no one knows their views because they were either foolish not to vote or most likely disenfranchised. This could either be because of the idealogical hegemony in British politics or the fact that for many, whether they vote or not in an election, makes not the slightest difference because of the electoral system.

Or because they choose to abstain because they don't care about politics. It's meaningless to quote this cohort as being a vote against the winner - it is not.
One party could get 100% of a 49% turnout. By your logic, the winner lacks a mandate. But that's nonsense. If you choose not to vote, you surrender your influence to those that do. It's not a protest, it's an abrogation of choice.

The only % it makes any sense to count are those as a % of those votes cast. A non-cast vote returns no MPs. It is an empty, vapid, meaningless statistic when talking about mandates.

 

[dejongj]

No it doesn't, it points out the weakness of the mandate the winner believes they have.

I disagree. Nobody prevented those who didn't exercise their vote from voting. They had the opportunity to change the outcome if they were bothered.

As such I do think it is meaningless in regards to the outcome. Everyone has got the right and ability including postal vote right across the common wealth.

I do think it is pathetic when people don't exercise their right to vote and personal would like to see it taken away if they can't be bothered to do so. Saves a bit in the administration and follow up.

 

[mex]

For anyone to turn up en masse and in protest outside the party conference of a rival is very bad form indeed in my opinion, but I am not surprised by such behaviour from Corbyn and his mob whether behaving peacefully or otherwise. What was the purpose? To protest that a conference was being held?

Corbyn clearly has no respect for the UK Parliamentary system, neither for the monarchy. I wonder how he will behave as a member of The Queen's Privy Council. His antics so far are at least entertaining although verging on being treasonous.

Mr.Jeremy 'Jesus Christ' Corbyn has clearly rattled your cage!! if I were you I would get used to him, judging by the support he is getting recently, he may well be your next PM....viva la revolution!! He was demonstrating against the austerity imposed by a government who have total disregard for anyone who is not wealthy. And don't forget that the anti austerity protests are by and large peaceful, unlike the thuggery demonstrated by the police under the whore that was Thatcher's term against the miners and the women peacefully protesting at sites such as Greenham Common, where the police urinated and deficated into buckets and threw it on them with regularity,something the right-wing propaganda machine failed to report.

How,exactly would Jesus Corbyn be comitting treason for his antics so far? for not singing the British national anthem? for looking scruffy? for standing up for something he believes in? I think you need to take your blue tinted glasses off my friend, he is a serious threat to the conservative way of thinking, why else is he depicted as a demon by the press?.

 

[dejongj]

Mr.Jeremy 'Jesus Christ' Corbyn has clearly rattled your cage!! if I were you I would get used to him, judging by the support he is getting recently, he may well be your next PM....viva la revolution!! He was demonstrating against the austerity imposed by a government who have total disregard for anyone who is not wealthy. And don't forget that the anti austerity protests are by and large peaceful, unlike the thuggery demonstrated by the police under the whore that was Thatcher's term against the miners and the women peacefully protesting at sites such as Greenham Common, where the police urinated and deficated into buckets and threw it on them with regularity,something the right-wing propaganda machine failed to report.

How,exactly would Jesus Corbyn be comitting treason for his antics so far? for not singing the British national anthem? for looking scruffy? for standing up for something he believes in? I think you need to take your blue tinted glasses off my friend, he is a serious threat to the conservative way of thinking, why else is he depicted as a demon by the press?.

True colours and colourful and insulting language. The irony or confirmation

 

[jakeblu]

Or because they choose to abstain because they don't care about politics. It's meaningless to quote this cohort as being a vote against the winner - it is not.
One party could get 100% of a 49% turnout. By your logic, the winner lacks a mandate. But that's nonsense. If you choose not to vote, you surrender your influence to those that do. It's not a protest, it's an abrogation of choice.

The only % it makes any sense to count are those as a % of those votes cast. A non-cast vote returns no MPs. It is an empty, vapid, meaningless statistic when talking about mandates.

Sorry I can't agree with that, its not meaningless that a third of those eligible to vote failed to do so and whilst it may not indicate an opposition to a mandate it certainly weakens it. Previously governments, even recent ones, would be elected on over 40%, Blair 1997 43.2%, Major 1992 41.9% if you cannot see that the Conservatives winning percentage, and Blairs in 2005, as a crisis of political authority then you have less sense about you than I assumed from some of your earlier posts

As an aside, how can someone who believes in electoral reform say that not voting is an abrogation of choice, considering that for many voting is simply a pointless exercise under the current electoral system?

 

[jakeblu]

I disagree. Nobody prevented those who didn't exercise their vote from voting. They had the opportunity to change the outcome if they were bothered.

Except of course for most people voting doesn't change anything. Less than one third of seats are marginal, the election battleground, and often even with a huge swing, most of those will not change hand.

 

[Llamaman]

As an aside, how can someone who believes in electoral reform say that not voting is an abrogation of choice, considering that for many voting is simply a pointless exercise under the current electoral system?

It is not a pointless exercise - if all those abstentions actually voted, the result in almost every seat could be overturned (assuming they all voted the same way). So if you don't vote, you've not registered a protest, you've simply allowed others to choose on your behalf. The 1/3 who didn't vote didn't vote "not tory" - they voted "don't care - you choose". The only votes that count are the ones on a ballot paper, not the ones in your head sat on the sofa.

There's still plenty of variety of parties to vote for and most people could find a party they mostly agreed with if they tried to. The "there's no-one to vote for" argument is hogwash - its an excuse for the embarrassed apathetic.
Sure, under FPTP most (currently) have little chance of winning a single seat, but if the stay-aways really cared, they could unite behind an independent and if not win the seat, certainly give the main parties a scare. But they don't, because they don't care.

Even if you feel there really is no choice at the ballot box, one can always stand as an independent.


My support for electoral reform isn't to get bums off seats (although that may be a side-effect in the long run) - it is to ensure that those who do bother to vote get better represented. I've rarely lived anywhere where my party of choice are likely to get elected, but I still vote - and so should anyone else who professes to care about politics. Returning officers aren't mind readers - if you don't make your choice known, how - or why - should anybody care what it is?

 

[Llamaman]

Except of course for most people voting doesn't change anything. Less than one third of seats are marginal, the election battleground, and often even with a huge swing, most of those will not change hand.

Add on the 1/3 of people who don't vote and most seats could be marginal. They don't not vote because they can't change the result (they can), they don't vote because they don't care.

 

[jakeblu]

It is not a pointless exercise - if all those abstentions actually voted, the result in almost every seat could be overturned (assuming they all voted the same way).

You seem to be arguing a point here that you castigated me for earlier.

There's still plenty of variety of parties to vote for and most people could find a party they mostly agreed with if they tried to. The "there's no-one to vote for" argument is hogwash - its an excuse for the embarrassed apathetic.
Sure, under FPTP most (currently) have little chance of winning a single seat, but if the stay-aways really cared, they could unite behind an independent and if not win the seat, certainly give the main parties a scare. But they don't, because they don't care.

Even if you feel there really is no choice at the ballot box, one can always stand as an independent.

We seem to be at cross purposes here, I am not saying there's no one to vote for or even no one that represents their views but that in the vast majority of seats in this country if your choice is not the sitting MP then your vote will not change the result.

 

[jakeblu]

Add on the 1/3 of people who don't vote and most seats could be marginal. They don't not vote because they can't change the result (they can), they don't vote because they don't care.

Your doing it again

 

[Llamaman]

in the vast majority of seats in this country if your choice is not the sitting MP then your vote will not change the result.

One vote, no. But 30% of the votes, yes. Which shows that the non-voters aren't interested in changing the result... and so should not be counted as an anti-vote for the winner (which is what you appear to be doing with your calculation of mandates).

To look at this with data - the turnout % between a marginal seat (typically 70%ish) and a safe one (typically 50-60%) doesn't account for the absentee voters. There's clearly a very large core of people who don't vote, even if the result is in doubt. So it's not true to claim that it is safe seats that cause low turnouts (although they make low turnouts worse).

There's also the fallacy implicit in your assumptions that non-voters wouldn't choose the winner if forced to vote. I suspect that a significant number of the non-voters (especially in the cohort that DO turnout in marginals) don't vote because they are happy with the expected winner in their safe seat.

We really can't tell what non-voters are thinking. The only valid data we have is to assume that the turnout is a representative sample of the populace, and that a mandate from active voters is a valid mandate. Assuming that non-voters represent an opposition movement who could influence most elections, but choose not to, is wishful thinking of the defeated.

 

[Cobra]

We really can't tell what non-voters are thinking.

I can tell you what one no voter is thinking, in a nut shell,
totally disheartened with the process and what actually is on offer,
Hobson's choice.
Its a shame we can't vote for "none of the above"
( Brewster's Millions)

 

[Llamaman]

Its a shame we can't vote for "none of the above"

What would that achieve? It only makes sense if you have compulsory voting.

 

[Cobra]

What would that achieve? It only makes sense if you have compulsory voting.

It would of course show a "vote of no confidence" in any of the parties.
If it was a majority vote then well the possibilities are interesting to say the least.

Should there ever be a compulsory vote, "None of the above", would not, I suspect, be included on the ballot paper, for fear of "that" getting a majority.
Some people have their favourite party, and will vote for them anyway, but I'm also sure some people vote for the lesser of two ( or three or four come to that) evils,
Call it tactical voting if you like, to keep out a certain party (what ever colours they fly)

No mater how you call it, the blues got 11.3 million votes
The turn out was approx 30 million voters,
So that's approx 20 million voters that didn't want the current government.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results

 

[RedRobin]

No mater how you call it, the blues got 11.3 million votes
The turn out was approx 30 million voters,
So that's approx 20 million voters that didn't want the current government.

.....No, that's 20 million who either were not presented with a political party which resonated with them or who simply couldn't be arsed to vote - That's not the same as they "didn't want the current government". But of course we each bias our opinions towards those we prefer and that applies to politicians as much as it does to football teams. C'mon you Blues! Chelsea!!

 

[Cobra]

.....No, that's 20 million who either were not presented with a political party which resonated with them or who simply couldn't be arsed to vote

No, that's the total ( roughly) of those that did vote, if you follow the link, over 46 million are registered voters,
66% voted, so that's about 30 million ( bare with me 'cause I CBA to work out the actual percentages to the Nth degree) that voted,
and the blues got in with 11 million votes. so thats about 20 million ( or nearly twice as many) that didn't want the present government.



And approx 15 million that didn't vote . Either as a protest at none of the above or are totally disheartened with the whole thing.

football teams.

What are they?

 

[RedRobin]

Mr.Jeremy 'Jesus Christ' Corbyn has clearly rattled your cage!! if I were you I would get used to him, judging by the support he is getting recently, he may well be your next PM....viva la revolution!!......... I think you need to take your blue tinted glasses off my friend, he is a serious threat to the conservative way of thinking, why else is he depicted as a demon by the press?.

....Blue tinted glasses, Red tinted, Yellow tinted (good for night driving), Purple tinted (I'm a Prince fan), Green tinted, it doesn't matter which - We all have our own opinions, perspectives and prejudices based on those we favour. I expect that you are no different from me in this respect, Nigel @mex.

I find that Corbyn fills me with the same sort of contempt that some others feel for Cameron but I don't and won't lose any sleep over it.

For the record I wear mirrored polaroid prescription vario-focal Oakleys

 

[rjbell]

....I agree that a broader spectrum of parties working together could be a good thing (as long as the Tories were included!). However, human beings being what they are I can't see such a structure managing to fully function and I am sure there would be constant infighting and struggles to gain power amongst them. The ideals of rightwing and leftwing policies are often too fundamentally opposed. In effect you would be suggesting a multi-party coalition and looking at some such foreign governments this does not work well.

I don't know about that. looking at the stats for this years election. Both left and right are quite evenly represented. Then when you consider the majority of MPs are reasonably centre in there view's they should find some common ground when they're not apposing for apposing sake.

 

[Jim_Tod]

On a very different slant, it is rather disturbing to see police snipers on the rooftops during a political party conference, a sad part of modern day life.

Which politicians did they hit?

 

[Jim_Tod]

The only % it makes any sense to count are those as a % of those votes cast.

Have a google about the 40% rule in the 1979 Scottish Devolution Referendum

 

[Jim_Tod]

I disagree. Nobody prevented those who didn't exercise their vote from voting. They had the opportunity to change the outcome if they were bothered.

I dont disagree that no one prevents people from voting however i do disagree that it would necessarily have changed the outcome under our westminster voting system

Just look at the UKIP vote ( not a supporter but they are an excellent example of the principle involved)

Across the uk almost exactly one third of those who voted conservative voted for UKIP and UKIP got the third largest number of votes overall. The conservatives got 331 seats and UKIP got 1.

There are relatively few marginal seats and outwith these, voting for the other side, whatever political hue, is a wasted vote and wont change the result. How to disenfranchise the voters as we watch the conservatives start to mess around with boundary changes to create 20 or so more conservative safe seats having previously been stalled on this by their coalition partners.

Bring on a move to proper PR and see whether the voting numbers go up


Just realised as i caught up that this point has been made a few times

 

[jakeblu]

Or the new proposed rules for strike action

 

[jakeblu]

One vote, no. But 30% of the votes, yes. Which shows that the non-voters aren't interested in changing the result... and so should not be counted as an anti-vote for the winner (which is what you appear to be doing with your calculation of mandates).

To look at this with data - the turnout % between a marginal seat (typically 70%ish) and a safe one (typically 50-60%) doesn't account for the absentee voters. There's clearly a very large core of people who don't vote, even if the result is in doubt. So it's not true to claim that it is safe seats that cause low turnouts (although they make low turnouts worse).

There's also the fallacy implicit in your assumptions that non-voters wouldn't choose the winner if forced to vote. I suspect that a significant number of the non-voters (especially in the cohort that DO turnout in marginals) don't vote because they are happy with the expected winner in their safe seat.

We really can't tell what non-voters are thinking. The only valid data we have is to assume that the turnout is a representative sample of the populace, and that a mandate from active voters is a valid mandate. Assuming that non-voters represent an opposition movement who could influence most elections, but choose not to, is wishful thinking of the defeated.

It seems pointless continuing discussing this because we are obviously miles apart, but I do object to you misrepresenting what I am saying. It was never my argument that the 30% of voters who didn't vote did so because of the electoral system, only that it was a factor. Neither have I stated that all those who didn't vote would vote against the government, unlike you who is seemingly arguing that all non voters would join together and vote out the incumbent.

 

[kendo1]

Will you three pack it in-- there's only one winner, a loser and another with one vote.

Hmm. Sounds familiar