Things that make you :)

[KeithMacdonald]

1 hour ago, billbedford said:

I would say that the problem is not that he is a disruptor, but that he is the only disruptor. No one else seems to want to disturb the bland conformity of parliament and by extension the government. 

 

I cannot disagree, as most people are blindly oblivious about how almost identical so many policies are for both parts of the Con-Lab UniParty. As they both adopt the policies prepared for them by the civil service. Most people get distracted by the yar-boo! theatrical arguments, not noticing that the arguments are not really about the policies themselves, but just when, how fast or how much.

 

A friend within the BBC told me how much was revealed by these politicians and their behaviour in the Green Room after the last televised debate that included the Great Disruptor. On screen, for the audience, they had been yelling theatrical disagreement at each other. Off screen, in private, they are all the best of friends, laughing with each other and getting each other drinks, but doing their best to shun the Great Disruptor. Like a private club that's just been gate-crashed by "the wrong sort of chap".

Edited July 5 by KeithMacdonald
Typo fixes

[kevinlms]

27 minutes ago, 97406 said:

 

FPTP means that the last government got in based on the say-so of 29% of the electorate. This includes those who didn’t vote, and the majority of the people I know who didn’t vote are fed up rather than apathetic. I heard one quote that the only other European country that uses it is Belarus! The only silver lining this time is that disruptive party got 4 seats as opposed to a larger share.

Don't worry, exactly the same arguments get used (unfair representations etc) here in Oz, where we have compulsory voting AND preferential voting.

 

The difference is that in Australia, the quest is to get people to vote for you, in Britain, the quest is to get people out of their home or workplace doors AND to vote for you.

[The Johnster]

I would say that electoral reform is long overdue if we want a more representative system than one that evolved rather slowly, painfully, and incompletely from privilege based on land ownership.  What I'd want to see would be a system in which one had the choice of voting against canditates as an alternative to voting for them, and for abstentions to be registered as votes for 'none of the above'.  This would need compulsory voting for the entire electorate, or non-voters counted as abstainers in a separate category from 'none of the above'.

 

I believe this would give a much more accurate picture of the will of the electorate and better representation of it in parliament.  It would mean, for example, that a government could be formed by a party that actually had a minus number of seats won at the election if the other parties had higher 'seat-deficit' minus numbers (can you have a higher minus number? you know what I mean, though), the least unpopular party.  This would prevent it's politicians claiming to have the authority of a majority mandate, and perhaps make for more circumspection in policy-making.  We would no longer have PMs claiming that they have a clear mandate based on the support of 18% of the electorate after a low turnout (looking at you, Margaret, not that you were the only offender). 

 

In the present situation, Starmer will be able to claim a clear mandate because of a governing majority in the Commons, despite having had less than 50% of the electorate voting for his party.  Perhaps it's time the King stepped in claiming direct rule by divine right; at least we'd know who to blame and whose head to put on the spike come the glorious day, the risk of this being why we pay him so much...

 

Not thread drift; the ousting of the tories, the lifelong enemy in my case, has made me smile, but I doubt that I'll retain that expression for long.  They're all mendacious chisellers, the lot of 'em.  'Stards.

Edited July 5 by The Johnster

[kevinlms]

5 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I would say that electoral reform is long overdue if we want a more representative system than one that evolved rather slowly, painfully, and incompletely from privilege based on land ownership.  What I'd want to see would be a system in which one had the choice of voting against canditates as an alternative to voting for them, and for abstentions to be registered as votes for 'none of the above'.  This would need compulsory voting for the entire electorate, or non-voters counted as abstainers in a separate category from 'none of the above'.

 

I believe this would give a much more accurate picture of the will of the electorate and better representation of it in parliament.  It would mean, for example, that a government could be formed by a party that actually had a minus number of seats won at the election if the other parties had higher 'seat-deficit' minus numbers (can you have a higher minus number? you know what I mean, though), the least unpopular party.  This would prevent it's politicians claiming to have the authority of a majority mandate, and perhaps make for more circumspection in policy-making.  We would no longer have PMs claiming that they have a clear mandate based on the support of 18% of the electorate after a low turnout (looking at you, Margaret, not that you were the only offender). 

 

In the present situation, Starmer will be able to claim a clear mandate because of a governing majority in the Commons, despite having had less than 50% of the electorate voting for his party.  Perhaps it's time the King stepped in claiming direct rule by divine right; at least we'd know who to blame and whose head to put on the spike come the glorious day...

 

Not thread drift; the ousting of the tories, the lifelong enemy in my case, has made me smile, but I doubt that I'll retain that expression for long.  They're all mendacious chisellers, the lot of 'em.  'Stards.

Most makes sense, apart from counting any that don't bother voting - if they can't be bothered, then they lose the right to complain. That will serve them right!

 

A late friend suggested that everyone should pass some sort of test, to be able to vote. How would you possibly decide who passed what test exactly?

[97406]

6 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I would say that electoral reform is long overdue if we want a more representative system than one that evolved rather slowly, painfully, and incompletely from privilege based on land ownership.  What I'd want to see would be a system in which one had the choice of voting against canditates as an alternative to voting for them, and for abstentions to be registered as votes for 'none of the above'.  This would need compulsory voting for the entire electorate, or non-voters counted as abstainers in a separate category from 'none of the above'.

 

I believe this would give a much more accurate picture of the will of the electorate and better representation of it in parliament.  It would mean, for example, that a government could be formed by a party that actually had a minus number of seats won at the election if the other parties had higher 'seat-deficit' minus numbers (can you have a higher minus number? you know what I mean, though), the least unpopular party.  This would prevent it's politicians claiming to have the authority of a majority mandate, and perhaps make for more circumspection in policy-making.  We would no longer have PMs claiming that they have a clear mandate based on the support of 18% of the electorate after a low turnout (looking at you, Margaret, not that you were the only offender). 

 

In the present situation, Starmer will be able to claim a clear mandate because of a governing majority in the Commons, despite having had less than 50% of the electorate voting for his party.  Perhaps it's time the King stepped in claiming direct rule by divine right; at least we'd know who to blame and whose head to put on the spike come the glorious day...

 

Not thread drift; the ousting of the tories, the lifelong enemy in my case, has made me smile, but I doubt that I'll retain that expression for long.  They're all mendacious chisellers, the lot of 'em.  'Stards.

 

I too dislike the Tories somewhat more than most of the other non-disruptive parties. I’d prefer coalitions and a degree of compromise between ideologies and I want a vote for neither of the main 2 parties to count. PR will give me that, even though there will be a few more loonies in the house.

 

From back in ‘97 I recall an anagram of Tony Blair MP was I’m Tory Plan B

[billbedford]

15 minutes ago, The Johnster said:

I would say that electoral reform is long overdue if we want a more representative system than one that evolved rather slowly, painfully, and incompletely from privilege based on land ownership. 

 

 I don't think that is the main problem. MPs used to be chosen from a wide range of backgrounds, including teachers, doctors, miners and people who had run their businesses. Such people tended to be more in touch with the feelings of the people they represented than the 'professional' politicians that we have today. 

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, 97406 said:

I heard one quote that the only other European country that uses it is Belarus!

Yes but there's only one candidate after everybody else was eliminated by force.🙂 (With a little help from VP next door)

[97406]

11 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Yes but there's only one candidate after everybody else was eliminated by force.🙂 (With a little help from VP next door)

 

On the subject of Vladimir…

 

 

[melmerby]

32 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

Most makes sense, apart from counting any that don't bother voting -

I didn't vote because there isn't a box on the voting paper that says "None of the above"😁

We need more connection with the people.

Until the last few elections I have always voted since I was entitled to but recently the candidates, if I know who they are, haven't inspired me.

(The last one I voted in was 2019)

 

For the recent local elections we had absolutely zero information about who was standing and their policies.

For yesterday's do we only had Blue & Red information, even that was rather scarce on policy.

I found out today there were 7 candidates. Where was the other five's information?

 

I can remember door to door canvassing and loads of leaflets, what has happened?

 

 

 

[melmerby]

38 minutes ago, 97406 said:

I’d prefer coalitions and a degree of compromise between ideologies and I want a vote for neither of the main 2 parties to count. PR will give me that, even though there will be a few more loonies in the house.

We had STV for the European Parliament elections, that seemed to work reasonably well (though we still got NF!🙂)

[97406]

13 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I didn't vote because there isn't a box on the voting paper that says "None of the above"😁?

 

I found the best solution to that after the Iraq war was to write it on the paper 😃

[kevinlms]

9 minutes ago, melmerby said:

I can remember door to door canvassing and loads of leaflets, what has happened?

 

I don't remember having any candidates door knocking, although some do, according to TV news. The closest I've seen, is them hanging around shops, especially cafes and I cross the road to avoid them. Usually, I've already decided who I'm going to vote for and not going to change. After all they've had years to convince me, so I'm not going to change based on a brief conversation, repeating something their leader has said in that days news!

[Nick C]

2 minutes ago, kevinlms said:

I don't remember having any candidates door knocking, although some do, according to TV news. The closest I've seen, is them hanging around shops, especially cafes and I cross the road to avoid them. Usually, I've already decided who I'm going to vote for and not going to change. After all they've had years to convince me, so I'm not going to change based on a brief conversation, repeating something their leader has said in that days news!

I had three separate candidates approach me last week to try and give me their pitch - unfortunately it was while I was on holiday in France, and they were all campaigning for the French elections!

[choo1choo]

Sorry if this upsets some people but I despair of all politicians at the moment. The country has gone to Hell in a handcart at a very quick rate. Good luck to the new bloke but I just feel sorry for us poor suckers who will have to pay financially and emotionally for whatever is in store next .

 

Craig.

[97406]

18 minutes ago, choo1choo said:

Sorry if this upsets some people but I despair of all politicians at the moment. The country has gone to Hell in a handcart at a very quick rate. Good luck to the new bloke but I just feel sorry for us poor suckers who will have to pay financially and emotionally for whatever is in store next .

 

Craig.

 

You are not alone. The last lot were the worst government since the 70s. Possibly since even before, but I was a primary school in the 70s and had more interesting things to follow like all those noisy diesels up at the local railway junction within earshot of my house.

[MJI]

I like the vote against,  would have knocked out 4 parties.

 

1 nasty from a limited company

1 the bloke is a person who throws cabers (other rude words are available),  ok his friends used to live near us, not nice people.

2 strange ones Judeans peoples front, and peoples front of judea.

 

The others were ok.

 

So one due to person, 2 due to irrelevant, one to not a party as such.

 

Btw i generally dislike people than parties. And voted for 5 different parties in 4 elections.

[MJI]

25 minutes ago, 97406 said:

 

You are not alone. The last lot were the worst government since the 70s. Possibly since even before, but I was a primary school in the 70s and had more interesting things to follow like all those noisy diesels up at the local railway junction within earshot of my house.

Toss up between 70s strikes and power cuts or anything post May

[97406]

Looking back….

 

Anyone else remember the “Bin bag full of custard” quote?😃

Edited July 5 by 97406

[97406]

2 hours ago, billbedford said:

 

 I don't think that is the main problem. MPs used to be chosen from a wide range of backgrounds, including teachers, doctors, miners and people who had run their businesses. Such people tended to be more in touch with the feelings of the people they represented than the 'professional' politicians that we have today. 

 

Yes indeed, we need this. A technocracy and meritocracy. Boot out much of this current lot!

Edited July 5 by 97406

[bimble]

we had a referendum on the 'vote against' or 'Alternative Vote'* in 2011 and it was rejected by the electorate 68%/32%.

 

I can't remember how I voted in that case, though it was a system that we used at university for our student union elections.

 

* where you rank all the candidates you like and if your first choice doesn't make it your vote moves to your second choice, then third, etc, and if there's someone you don't like you can not give them anything.

[Dunsignalling]

I'm 72 and, have voted in almost every parliamentary election since becoming eligible to do so.

 

Only twice has my vote ever counted for anything. In the by-election that proved to be the final poll in my previous constituency, and yesterday's in the freshly redrawn one. 

 

In both cases, my vote has been a tactical one, which I consider the inevitable result of more and more thinking voters attempting to correct the excesses of first-past-the-post.

 

However, the national result, at least in part, suggests we may have exchanged one set of distortions for another.

 

I fear that we may not see grown-up politics thrive over the long term in Britain until we adopt a grown-up electoral system.

Edited July 5 by Dunsignalling

[97406]

8 minutes ago, bimble said:

we had a referendum on the 'vote against' or 'Alternative Vote'* in 2011 and it was rejected by the electorate 68%/32%.

 

I can't remember how I voted in that case, though it was a system that we used at university for our student union elections.

 

* where you rank all the candidates you like and if your first choice doesn't make it your vote moves to your second choice, then third, etc, and if there's someone you don't like you can not give them anything.

Doesn’t make it right. There’s 2 parties in control doing very well out of the current system. Plus there is the disinterest in politics from many. That is the problem.  

[BoD]

This isn’t making me :)  in the slightest.

[97406]

Just now, BoD said:

This isn’t making me :)  in the slightest.

It’ll be business as usual from tomorrow unless you want to make us smile right now of course :)

[97406]

It’s also nice to see that we’re all broadly on the same page. That makes me smile.