What no jeremy cobyn thread?

[dejongj]

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

So you got the vote prior to this election to change the voting system and guess what.....the people spoke and they didn't want to change the voting system.

Sorry but I am confused; democracy spoke out twice in a row (on the points raised here). And still people are arguing against it that it somehow isn't representative. Other than reversing it and letting the minority win I have no idea what people actually want.

 

[dejongj]

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.

The point remains though, those who didn't vote wasted their opportunity. It is pointless going into what if scenarios as they didn't vote.

 

[cambsno]

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?

Surely its our choice NOT to vote?

We had a referendum on reform a couple of years ago - was voted to stay the same so lets not get SNP and demand change until we get it!

 

[Llamaman]

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.

No, I was making the point that "I can't change the result" is a poor excuse for not voting, because together the non-voters are as large as either of the main two parties and capable of changing the results. It's a false argument. But if that wasn't your point, I apologise.

Let's get back to basics - you say that the government hasn't got a mandate because it failed to get not a majority of seats, or even a majority of active voters, but a majority of registered voters?
Now, given that there's a hardcore of 30% who won't vote even in marginal seats, that would mean to get a "mandate" a party would need to secure 50% from 70% available, which for the numerically challenged is winning 71.5% of the turnout.
Such a large majority has never been delivered from an election. The only time we've had a government with such a majority was the war coalition, but I guess you'd reject that as none of the parties were elected on a coalition ticket and it was never ratified by a plebiscite.
Even Earl Grey in 1833 and Palmerstone in 1857 and 1859 only managed 67, 66 and 66%! (Yes, I had to research this)

Even if you lower the bar to a mandate being a majority of voters, it still doesn't deliver many governments. The last one would have been Baldwin in 1931, and before that Lord Salisbury in 1900.

So are you basically saying that pretty much every government since the reign of Victoria has been invalid?

Edit for extra factoid: Even Putin only got 63.6% of the popular vote in 2012, from a turnout of 65%. If even he can't get a "mandate" what hope is there for a country with a functioning multi-party system and a free press?

 

[Llamaman]

Surely its our choice NOT to vote?

Absolutely. I'd only support compulsory voting if there was an "abstain" option. Democracy should include the right to abstain, but the non-voter must accept the result. Government should not be held up or held to ransom by the undecided or apathetic.
A government returned by majority of forced vote would have far less legitimacy than one with a weaker majority from freely cast votes.

 

[Jim_Tod]

So you got the vote prior to this election to change the voting system and guess what.....the people spoke and they didn't want to change the voting system.

Sorry but I am confused; democracy spoke out twice in a row (on the points raised here). And still people are arguing against it that it somehow isn't representative. Other than reversing it and letting the minority win I have no idea what people actually want.

Perhaps you just don't understand a view that first past the post simply means winner takes all and doesn't deliver representative democracy and actually stifles political discourse. I live in Scotland where we have a form of PR, i vote in council elections with a different form of PR and occasionally vote in European elections using another form of PR. Yet when it comes to the parliament which holds the purse strings it strangely seems immune to calls for a decent system of PR.

The government of our countries should not be the equivalent of a rugby or football world cup- lots of teams but only one winner who then gets to impose their will. 2 out of 3 didnt vote conservative so why should they have a majority- same historically with labour, and if you go back far enough the liberal party.

Perhaps our society would be fairer with a bit more consensus politics that sensible PR would bring.

Your view that reversing democracy to let the minority rule is exactly the problem the UK has today

 

[cambsno]

Absolutely. I'd only support compulsory voting if there was an "abstain" option. Democracy should include the right to abstain, but the non-voter must accept the result. Government should not be held up or held to ransom by the undecided or apathetic.
A government returned by majority of forced vote would have far less legitimacy than one with a weaker majority from freely cast votes.

I see no reason to have compulsory voting - regardless of the options.

I don't see the issue over 'legitimacy'. We all know the rules, and that its quite likely that the party in power may only have 20% of the vote in the country but thats the way things are and if people were that bothered we would have turnouts around 80%+.

So what about the the EU then? What % are MEPs from GB? 5%? So how does that become legitimate?

 

[cambsno]

Perhaps you just don't understand a view that first past the post simply means winner takes all and doesn't deliver representative democracy and actually stifles political discourse. I live in Scotland where we have a form of PR, i vote in council elections with a different form of PR and occasionally vote in European elections using another form of PR. Yet when it comes to the parliament which holds the purse strings it strangely seems immune to calls for a decent system of PR.

The government of our countries should not be the equivalent of a rugby or football world cup- lots of teams but only one winner who then gets to impose their will. 2 out of 3 didnt vote conservative so why should they have a majority- same historically with labour, and if you go back far enough the liberal party.

Perhaps our society would be fairer with a bit more consensus politics that sensible PR would bring.

Your view that reversing democracy to let the minority rule is exactly the problem the UK has today

As I posted above, we had a referendum on this and the public voted to keep it the same so that argument is not valid. If the public were bothered they would have voted a different way.

 

[Llamaman]

Hmm, this has turned into an electoral reform thread (hurrah - I've been passionate about this since before I could vote) - but it is now way off topic. Sorry, Mods! Too late to split?

Still, since we stopped discussing tribal loyalties, the debate has been intelligent, good natured and a credit to the forum. Totally unlike any other OOF thread, in fact!

 

[dejongj]

Perhaps you just don't understand a view that first past the post simply means winner takes all and doesn't deliver representative democracy and actually stifles political discourse. I live in Scotland where we have a form of PR, i vote in council elections with a different form of PR and occasionally vote in European elections using another form of PR. Yet when it comes to the parliament which holds the purse strings it strangely seems immune to calls for a decent system of PR.

The government of our countries should not be the equivalent of a rugby or football world cup- lots of teams but only one winner who then gets to impose their will. 2 out of 3 didnt vote conservative so why should they have a majority- same historically with labour, and if you go back far enough the liberal party.

Perhaps our society would be fairer with a bit more consensus politics that sensible PR would bring.

Your view that reversing democracy to let the minority rule is exactly the problem the UK has today

No my point was that you had the vote to change the voting system. Not a general election but to change the voting system. And people did not want it. So what is fairer than that? You had exactly the choice that you now want and you didn't choose it. That was prior to the last elections.

 

[Jim_Tod]

As I posted above, we had a referendum on this and the public voted to keep it the same so that argument is not valid. If the public were bothered they would have voted a different way.

No we had a referendum on AV which was rejected. We didnt have a referendum on a decent system of PR

Are you saying that you believe that fptp is acceptable whether only say 25% of those who are eligible vote for the party who wins and everone else can go hang themselves?

 

[Deleted sulking member 63079]

No my point was that you had the vote to change the voting system. Not a general election but to change the voting system. And people did not want it. So what is fairer than that? You had exactly the choice that you now want and you didn't choose it. That was prior to the last elections.

I think, with votes such as the above, the parties shouldn't be able to get involved with a preference. The "No" campaign described AV in such a way that made it sound horribly confusing. Everyone should have just been sent a pack saying "This is how FPTP works and this is how AV works" and then voted.

 

[Jim_Tod]

So what about the the EU then? What % are MEPs from GB? 5%? So how does that become legitimate?

Not sure its as low as that but what it means is that the views of that 5% actually count and aren't overruled by the 25% under fptp- shock, horror democracy in action

 

[Phil V]

No my point was that you had the vote to change the voting system. Not a general election but to change the voting system. And people did not want it. So what is fairer than that? You had exactly the choice that you now want and you didn't choose it. That was prior to the last elections.

To be fair...
The electoral reform ballot we had was somewhat hamstrung.

However, the electorate (or what we know if it) do appear to have no appetite for electoral reform. If we'd had a longer time to discuss the issues, and maybe even if there had been an intelligent debate about what method of PR we should vote on.... It might just have captured the public imagination.

That said, despite not being happy about the result of the last election, I don't look forward to a government of weirdo's because there are too many idiots in the country, the current system succeeds in keeping it fairly sensible.

Surely there's a sense of National shame that we've sent Farage and Nick Griffin to the European Parliament. (or more to the point - not represented at all).

 

[cambsno]

No we had a referendum on AV which was rejected. We didnt have a referendum on a decent system of PR

Are you saying that you believe that fptp is acceptable whether only say 25% of those who are eligible vote for the party who wins and everone else can go hang themselves?

Yes I am. The votes would hardly change... Based on the BBC the Tories and UKIP could have formed a coalition with a majority, with 49% of the vote (so taking into account non voters, 66% turnout) am guessing thats 35% give or take that voted.... but hold on, we had that issue last time with people moaning they didn't vote for a coalition. We also don't know what that result could be. It could be Tories go with UKIP, or Lib Dems again... so how many people would vote for a Tory/Lib coalition.... 15%????

Every way has its issues - this has served us well for years and see no point in changing.

 

[dejongj]

I think, with votes such as the above, the parties shouldn't be able to get involved with a preference. The "No" campaign described AV in such a way that made it sound horribly confusing. Everyone should have just been sent a pack saying "This is how FPTP works and this is how AV works" and then voted.

I don't disagree, and it is an argument put forward for the European referendum as well. But who is truly independent?

 

[rjbell]

I think, with votes such as the above, the parties shouldn't be able to get involved with a preference. The "No" campaign described AV in such a way that made it sound horribly confusing. Everyone should have just been sent a pack saying "This is how FPTP works and this is how AV works" and then voted.

Wouldn't it be nice if the general election was handled like this also. Money out of politics. No fund raising no donations and a pack sent out with all party's manifestos.

 

[cambsno]

Wouldn't it be nice if the general election was handled like this also. Money out of politics. No fund raising no donations and a pack sent out with all party's manifestos.

Without fundraising or donations, how would they be able to afford the packs?

 

[Phil V]

Wouldn't it be nice if the general election was handled like this also. Money out of politics. No fund raising no donations and a pack sent out with all party's manifestos.

I don't want to turn it back into one of 'those' political threads, but the Manifesto of the governing party for the last 2 elections bears no resemblance to the general aims of the resulting government policy. Hilariously the one they repeated for a 2nd term was a promised reduction in immigration, despite being completely aware the decision isn't in their gift. The only way we could feasibly stem immigration whilst still being in the EU is to nosedive the economy.

I'd like to see accountability to the manifesto in government. Under the current system, there's nothing to stop Cameron declaring us a Socialist republic tomorrow, or indeed for every MP joining the Greens and they could carry through whatever they like till the next election. Where, let's face it, they're allowed to lie through their teeth in the next manifesto, and then do what they want again straight after.

 

[Phil V]

Without fundraising or donations, how would they be able to afford the packs?

The facts could be sent out by 'the government'

 

[rjbell]

Without fundraising or donations, how would they be able to afford the packs?

Just one pack for all parties paid with tax payers money.

 

[dejongj]

I do hope it is at least digital. I mean such a waste of tax payers money to send it out, kill trees and all that. Then again why bother with such low turn outs.

Why not just have a big phone in, and Internet likes and dislikes. No need for an opposition or anything like that. Direct access.

Seriously though, reading all this and that makes me realise that the current system is pretty good.

 

[rjbell]

I do hope it is at least digital. I mean such a waste of tax payers money to send it out, kill trees and all that. Then again why bother with such low turn outs.

Why not just have a big phone in, and Internet likes and dislikes. No need for an opposition or anything like that. Direct access.

Seriously though, reading all this and that makes me realise that the current system is pretty good.

How much do you think its costing us now in sweetheart deals for donations? Like the £145m in tax breaks for hedge funds for there £55m kind donation.

 

[cambsno]

I don't want to turn it back into one of 'those' political threads, but the Manifesto of the governing party for the last 2 elections bears no resemblance to the general aims of the resulting government policy. Hilariously the one they repeated for a 2nd term was a promised reduction in immigration, despite being completely aware the decision isn't in their gift. The only way we could feasibly stem immigration whilst still being in the EU is to nosedive the economy.

I'd like to see accountability to the manifesto in government. Under the current system, there's nothing to stop Cameron declaring us a Socialist republic tomorrow, or indeed for every MP joining the Greens and they could carry through whatever they like till the next election. Where, let's face it, they're allowed to lie through their teeth in the next manifesto, and then do what they want again straight after.

The issue there is that things can change. 5 years can be a long time and many external factors could change policy. I.e. What if dc said he would keep immigration to 50k pa but it got worse in Syria and we needed to take 200k of refugees. A good government will listen to the public, they may have a policy but when it comes to implementation there could be a backlash. If a government lies too much they won't be voted in next time!

 

[Phil V]

The issue there is that things can change. 5 years can be a long time and many external factors could change policy. I.e. What if dc said he would keep immigration to 50k pa but it got worse in Syria and we needed to take 200k of refugees. A good government will listen to the public, they may have a policy but when it comes to implementation there could be a backlash. If a government lies too much they won't be voted in next time!

Well that's one thing:
But what when the manifesto says they'll get immigration down to 'tens of thousands' but we are members of the EU and we can't control the number of EU migrants. So they've made a promise they have no plans to put into place.
Or promising that there'll be no overhaul of the NHS because uts an expensive and disruptive thing to do, then instantly embarking on the biggest overhaul of the NHS in its history?

Just 2 examples, but there are more. There's a huge difference between changing course due to external pressures and what is effectively deception. If it was retail, it'd be fairly described as 'bait and switch'.

 

[StewartR]

I'd like to see accountability to the manifesto in government.... let's face it, they're allowed to lie through their teeth in the next manifesto, and then do what they want again straight after.

Interesting point Phil, and not one I'd disagree with in principle, but I don't see how it could possibly work. Who would be responsible for deciding whether the government was sticking to its manifesto? What criteria would they use to judge whether a particular government action was a valid response to events or a bait-and-switch? How would these people be chosen and who would they be accountable to? I could raise many more such questions but you get the point. I fear it's a complete non-starter ad a practical proposition, unfortunately.

Edit: Of course we already have a mechanism, which is that the electorate decide after the 5 years whether that'd be prepared to give them another go at it. It might not be a terribly good mechanism, but I can't see anything better.

 

[dejongj]

Well that's one thing:
But what when the manifesto says they'll get immigration down to 'tens of thousands' but we are members of the EU and we can't control the number of EU migrants. So they've made a promise they have no plans to put into place.
Or promising that there'll be no overhaul of the NHS because uts an expensive and disruptive thing to do, then instantly embarking on the biggest overhaul of the NHS in its history?

Just 2 examples, but there are more. There's a huge difference between changing course due to external pressures and what is effectively deception. If it was retail, it'd be fairly described as 'bait and switch'.

I always took it as a given that the number excluded EU migrants as that is beyond control....

 

[Llamaman]

There are plans afoot to allow voters to recall their MP. It would only take a dozen or so marginal in the current parliament to recall their conservative MP and remove their majority. The opposition parties could then call a vote of no confidence and trigger a general election.

But a far simpler, and more elegant solution, is for the public to petition the Queen to dissolve parliament. Not that she would, of course.

 

[dejongj]

There are plans afoot to allow voters to recall their MP. It would only take a dozen or so marginal in the current parliament to recall their conservative MP and remove their majority. The opposition parties could then call a vote of no confidence and trigger a general election.

But a far simpler, and more elegant solution, is for the public to petition the Queen to dissolve parliament. Not that she would, of course.

I would love the irony of certain people trying that route via the queen.

Personally I think the system is fine. Too many people live in the today and instant result moment anyway. There need to be some focus on long term and perhaps slightly unpopular initiatives for the greater good.

 

[Llamaman]

No we had a referendum on AV which was rejected. We didnt have a referendum on a decent system of PR

But AV would have been the first step on the road to PR. Firstly, because the hardest part of reform is getting started. Secondly, because it would allow the parties with electoral reform in their manifesto a greater opportunity to increase their seat count and thus put ER on the agenda. And thirdly because PR would require a fundamental change to our electoral system (breaking the constituency link) which should not happen without a lot of public debate - debate which would be brought about by getting the public to engage with ER.

Are you saying that you believe that fptp is acceptable whether only say 25% of those who are eligible vote for the party who wins and everone else can go hang themselves?

No, he's saying the public think it's acceptable, as proven by a referendum not that long ago. What he, you or I personally think isn't important. I'm a keen advocate of electoral reform, but it would be hypocritical of me to champion electoral reform as the key to better democracy and then to ignore the democratic wishes of the people.

 

[Llamaman]

slightly unpopular initiatives for the greater good.

When it comes to politics, people are largely selfish, petty, and shallow. So good luck with that

 

[dejongj]

When it comes to politics, people are largely selfish, petty, and shallow. So good luck with that

I know but at least a five year term is better than a revolving door X factor style.

 

[Llamaman]

I know but at least a five year term is better than a revolving door X factor style.

Are we referring to Silvio Berlusconi here?

 

[crofter]

people are largely selfish, petty, and shallow.

That's better.

 

[StewartR]

I'm a keen advocate of electoral reform, but it would be hypocritical of me to champion electoral reform as the key to better democracy and then to ignore the democratic wishes of the people.

Well said!

 

[eeyore]

Just reading up on what the PM has said about Mr corbyn:

And on the subject of protecting our country from terrorism, let me just say this:

Thousands of words have been written about the new Labour leader.

But you only really need to know one thing: he thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a “tragedy”.

No.

A tragedy is nearly 3,000 people murdered one morning in New York.

A tragedy is the mums and dads who never came home from work that day.

A tragedy is people jumping from the towers after the planes hit.

My friends – we cannot let that man inflict his security-threatening, terrorist-sympathising, Britain-hating ideology on the country we love.

I think the Pm might need to check up on what Mr Corbyn said.... (Roughly pasted )

‘There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process.

‘This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy.’

Bin Laden should be put on trial; not in Britain, but in the place where he organised the biggest and most terrible of his massacres, New York.

‘He should be put on trial, because a trial would be the profoundest and most eloquent statement of the difference between our values and his. He wanted to kill as many innocent people as he could.

‘We want justice.’

 

[StewartR]

Here's something interesting. Not my original discovery: for that I have to thank Jack Of Kent. But anyway:

Corbyn on Saudi Arabia at the Labour Party conference [source here]:

“So for my first message to David Cameron, I say to him now a little message from our conference, I hope he’s listening – you never know:

Intervene now personally with the Saudi Arabian regime to stop the beheading and crucifixion of Ali Mohammed al-Nimr, who is threatened with the death penalty, for taking part in a demonstration at the age of 17.

And while you’re about it, terminate that bid made by our Ministry of Justice’s to provide services for Saudi Arabia – which would be required to carry out the sentence that would be put down on Mohammed Ali al-Nimr.

We have to be very clear about what we stand for in human rights.

A refusal to stand up is the kind of thing that really damages Britain’s standing in the world.”

Cameron on Saudi Arabia at the Conservative Party conference [source here]:

“There was one occasion since I’ve been prime minister where a bomb that would have potentially blown up over Britain was stopped because of intelligence we got from Saudi Arabia. […]

Of course it would be easier for me to say ‘I’m not having anything to do with these people, it’s all terribly difficult etcetera etcetera […]

For me, Britain’s national security and our people’s security comes first.”

A very interesting difference in their two approaches.

 

[boyfalldown]

Are the two mutually exclusive then?

 

[Llamaman]

Are the two mutually exclusive then?

They are if the information was obtained by torture, something Britain pretends not to do.

 

[Cobra]

Hmm, this has turned into an electoral reform thread (hurrah - I've been passionate about this since before I could vote) - but it is now way off topic. Sorry, Mods! Too late to split?

Yeah the thread, would be messier than a political party leadership ballot