Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
Labour not having any policies isn't a new thing.
I was driving a lot the time Corbyn was elected, and they had all the candidates on Woman's Hour to talk about their policies, and I remember being struck by how much most of them went on about opposing the Tories and not being the Tories, to the exclusion of almost anything else concrete.
I was driving a lot the time Corbyn was elected, and they had all the candidates on Woman's Hour to talk about their policies, and I remember being struck by how much most of them went on about opposing the Tories and not being the Tories, to the exclusion of almost anything else concrete.
It's looking up for Sir Keir
Tony Blair’s verdict on Keir Starmer: He lacks ideas
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/29/to...
That should earn him, brownie points with the left
Oh hang on....................
Tony Blair’s verdict on Keir Starmer: He lacks ideas
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/06/29/to...
That should earn him, brownie points with the left
Oh hang on....................
Talksteer said:
PR would give power to the block of parties that actually earned more than 50% of the vote. Not the one party that managed to optimise the geographic position of 35-40% of the vote.
The net effect of PR is that a more moderate position tends to win because most systems have ranked choice which means that parties that turn off a great deal of the electorate don't get second and third preference votes.
Trouble is you end up with a hybrid manifesto that zero % of the electorate voted for. The net effect of PR is that a more moderate position tends to win because most systems have ranked choice which means that parties that turn off a great deal of the electorate don't get second and third preference votes.
Representative democracy is a much better system.
Jockman said:
Trouble is you end up with a hybrid manifesto that zero % of the electorate voted for.
Representative democracy is a much better system.
This. Representative democracy is a much better system.
To use a very extreme example... say in a 3 party election 2 parties each get 49% of the vote and one party scores 2% . The party that will be the government is the one willing to accept whatever thing that the 2% demands as the price of their support - and that thing may well be something that the 98% did not vote for...
Interesting to watch Angela Rayner and Dominic Raab during PMQ's today. Rayner is so much more energised than Sir Keir, although personally I find she's rather shouty. But I wonder how many Labour voters (actual or potential) will see her performance and think "Now there's someone with some fire and passion; much better than SKS"?
I can't stand her, personally, but I can see why she has an appeal to those who doubt SKS's credentials.
Meanwhile I though Raab came across as sharp, witty and calm. I had thought of him as Nice But Dim, but today has changed my mind a little.
I can't stand her, personally, but I can see why she has an appeal to those who doubt SKS's credentials.
Meanwhile I though Raab came across as sharp, witty and calm. I had thought of him as Nice But Dim, but today has changed my mind a little.
Jockman said:
Talksteer said:
PR would give power to the block of parties that actually earned more than 50% of the vote. Not the one party that managed to optimise the geographic position of 35-40% of the vote.
The net effect of PR is that a more moderate position tends to win because most systems have ranked choice which means that parties that turn off a great deal of the electorate don't get second and third preference votes.
Trouble is you end up with a hybrid manifesto that zero % of the electorate voted for. The net effect of PR is that a more moderate position tends to win because most systems have ranked choice which means that parties that turn off a great deal of the electorate don't get second and third preference votes.
Representative democracy is a much better system.
And to call PR 'not representative democracy' is to greatly misunderstand what that term means.
andymadmak said:
This.
To use a very extreme example... say in a 3 party election 2 parties each get 49% of the vote and one party scores 2% . The party that will be the government is the one willing to accept whatever thing that the 2% demands as the price of their support - and that thing may well be something that the 98% did not vote for...
An extreme example, to be sure. Under FPTP you can make up a scenario where a party wins every single seat in parliament with less than half the popular vote.To use a very extreme example... say in a 3 party election 2 parties each get 49% of the vote and one party scores 2% . The party that will be the government is the one willing to accept whatever thing that the 2% demands as the price of their support - and that thing may well be something that the 98% did not vote for...
In reality, are the flaws in PR really any worse than, say, a party getting an 80-seat majority with 43% of the vote? In the previous election the same party lost its majority and shed over a dozen seats while its popular vote went up by five per cent? In the election before that the same party formed a government with fewer seats and 2.2 million fewer votes. And that's just one party over the past three elections.
Brave Fart said:
Interesting to watch Angela Rayner and Dominic Raab during PMQ's today. Rayner is so much more energised than Sir Keir, although personally I find she's rather shouty. But I wonder how many Labour voters (actual or potential) will see her performance and think "Now there's someone with some fire and passion; much better than SKS"?
I can't stand her, personally, but I can see why she has an appeal to those who doubt SKS's credentials.
Meanwhile I though Raab came across as sharp, witty and calm. I had thought of him as Nice But Dim, but today has changed my mind a little.
Did you catch the wink?I can't stand her, personally, but I can see why she has an appeal to those who doubt SKS's credentials.
Meanwhile I though Raab came across as sharp, witty and calm. I had thought of him as Nice But Dim, but today has changed my mind a little.
https://twitter.com/christiancalgie/status/1542103...
Rayner normally does well at PMQ's but she didn't seem to bother Raab who gave quite a good performance in terms of sparring, but I don't think anyone watching in learned anything of any significance from either Raab or Rayner.
Where was Starmer today anyway?
2xChevrons said:
Or...you end up with a hybrid manifesto that includes parts of platforms that a majority of the electorate voted for, implemented in rough proportion to the party's total vote share. Not 'winner [usually with less than half the vote] takes all'.
So basically a government run on fudge. On a manifesto that was never put to the electorate and could conceivably contain parts that the voter is vehemently against. Jockman said:
So basically a government run on fudge. On a manifesto that was never put to the electorate and could conceivably contain parts that the voter is vehemently against.
One person's fudge is another person's mature compromise. Again, is your concern (which I'll freely admit is a flaw in PR and similar systems) any real improvement over a system that can deliver a government with supreme legislative power that the majority of voters didn't vote for? Is it not a rather strange form of democracy that 40-something per cent of the electorate get to have their choice fully realised while the 40-slightly-less-something per cent are locked out of power? No representative democratic system can fully allow everyone's choices to be fully realised. Converting the decision of 47 million potential voters into a few hundred parliamentary representatives will always lead to fudges, proxies and compromises. It comes down to which fudges you want to accept and which ones you feel produce fairer/more representative outcomes.
Jockman said:
Tories are said to be gaming a snap election if SKS is charged by Durham Police and so forced to resign.
The 3 month Labour leadership election would it seem lead to a lurch to the left.
Obviously denied by Tory HQ in the Times today.
That's what I'd do, (he can now fixed term parliament act is repealed)The 3 month Labour leadership election would it seem lead to a lurch to the left.
Obviously denied by Tory HQ in the Times today.
It would be a another case of hold your nose because the alternative would be far far worse, it would be a shrewd move politically.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff