Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

The Turks have no intention of meeting all of the 72 criteria the EU were insisting upon for Turkey to be an member, nor will they need to. They have got the EU, Merkel & Germany, who are the only ones that matter, by the short & curlies. If the EU commission does not ratify the fast track access for Turks to the UK, the migrants they are currently stopping from crossing from Turkey to the Greek Islands will be fast tracked to the EU. This was the view of IInur Cevik a senior advisor to the Turkish president talking to Evan Davies on Newsnight on Wednesday. He called it part of the package deal to stem the flow of migrants to the EU. Not paranoia just fact.

Fast track access for Turks to the UK? Schengen perhaps, but I doubt the UK, whatever was said to Evan.

If reducing or stopping immigration to the UK is a critical issue for you, then you should vote Leave, I 100% agree. That shouldn't depend on the Turks at all, it's more about free movement of people within the EU. I just think this stuff about the Turks is scaremongering in exactly the same way some of the economic stuff from the Remain campaign is scaremongering. It is as unknown whether we will be 'flooded with Turks' if we stay in as whether we will lose 3 million jobs if we leave.

 

[sb_73]

What do you mean? Ignore what.
(Your posts keep on having extra text added)

I meant ignore the bit about Cameron and see what you think of the rest of the post (the one about the Turks). But the moment has gone.

I type as I think and post, then remember stuff I should have said and go back and edit. Makes stuff out of sync sometimes.

 

[sb_73]

Turnout in Birmingham, where they have elections for the council, projected to be below 35%. Labour expected to take some big losses.

 

[QPR999]

BBCQT is on now, I've only heard of Nigel Lawson, and rather vaguely of Michael O'Leary. Should be good then.

 

[Stroller]

For ****'s sake. The bloke who's been appointed to assist Chami Leatherbarti in her enquiry into Labour anti-semitism is now being denounced as being some kind of placeman. Can't they get anything right?

Where's the enquiry into Boris Johnson's racism?

 

[sb_73]

I'm watching the Liverpool Villareal highlights. I think Klopp wants to stay in Europe.

 

[TootingExcess]

And local representation and accountability would be lost. Plus you resign yourself to permanent coalition governments, where back-room deals determine the direction of the country instead of elected representatives.

The north/south ideological split is an anomaly that may indicate that a change is needed, but not really as far as I can tell. The voters in the South - where there has always been more people and prosperity throughout the centuries - vote for the parties that will generate more overall wealth, which means that they will get richer. The voters in the north - where traditionally there's been more manual labour and a (perceived) tougher way of life - consider themselves the downtrodden masses and vote for parties that pledge to change all of that. Because they want to become the richer people, and they want the better way of life, despite what they may say about clinging onto their working class roots.

I don't think that will change any time soon, despite the increased nationalism of parties such as UKIP and the SNP, who have a certain level of support but - in contrasting fortunes - whilst the SNP managed to gather enough support in enough constituencies to win and displace the failed New Labour incumbents, UKIP really blew it by not managing to get enough people in enough constituencies translating votes into seats. That was most likely because there's a far stronger nationalist movement in Scotland than there is in the rest of the country. I appreciate it sounds unfair on UKIP supporters, but our system of local representation at national level means that that's the way the game is played. All parties know that, and they all prepare for elections in the way they feel is best for them. UKIP got it right in as far as generating a core vote goes, but they would have been better served had they not declared themselves a true challenger to the main parties and concentrated on fewer, winnable seats instead. If they had done so, we may well have fifteen or twenty UKIP MPs now instead of just the one. And their voice would be heard more in Westminster. As it is, they are a negligible force, and their voters - whose four million votes only returned a single MP - ought to blame the party tactics for the situation instead of the system.

On the matter of the system, it's worth remembering that it is skewed in favour of a Labour government after the boundary changes brought in by Tony Blair. The Lib Dems scuppered a proposed rebalancing when they were in coalition, and as a result an average Conservative MP needed to gain far more votes than an average Labour MP, or indeed an average SNP MP.

Basically, there are loads of historic and constitutional reasons why no system is truly fair, but we have the one we operate under, and the rules are clear. Stand in a constituency, get more votes than your opponents (even just a single vote) and you are elected. If your party gains the most votes, they are in power, either as a majority party or as the lead party in a coalition. There's little point fighting an election under known rules, losing, and then whining about it. Plan and execute better next time.

I don't see how the current system of 32% per cent of the electorate gives a majority government is fair. You have to remember coalition of parties in government will probably consist of right and centre-right parties (or their left equivalent) anyway.

 

[YorkshireHoopster]

Fast track access for Turks to the UK? Schengen perhaps, but I doubt the UK, whatever was said to Evan.

If reducing or stopping immigration to the UK is a critical issue for you, then you should vote Leave, I 100% agree. That shouldn't depend on the Turks at all, it's more about free movement of people within the EU. I just think this stuff about the Turks is scaremongering in exactly the same way some of the economic stuff from the Remain campaign is scaremongering. It is as unknown whether we will be 'flooded with Turks' if we stay in as whether we will lose 3 million jobs if we leave.

I thought it was 75 million? It was on the front page of the Express so it must be true. But then the Brexit campaigners are all cut from the same cloth as Cameron et al who lead the remain camp. They are all liars who succeed by negative campaigning and hysteria whipping.

 

[TheBigDipper]

I don't see how the current system of 32% per cent of the electorate gives a majority government is fair. You have to remember coalition of parties in government will probably consist of right and centre-right parties (or their left equivalent) anyway.

I don't see it either. The current system made sense of a sort, 300 years ago, when it took days to get to London by horse. Communication was slow and regional representation at constituency level was important. It was developed at a time when many people (women, the poor) didn't even have the vote. Let's remember, Parliament was originally developed as a way of curbing the absolute power of royalty to the benefit of landowners, not the general population.

Today, of course, it is completely unrepresentative of the wishes of the population, encourages tactical voting and results in a majority government with twice as many people voting against them as for them if you just count the votes and ignore the constituency. That's one of the reasons we have so much conflict instead of cooperation. The winners (with 33%) don't have to cooperate and the losers (with 66%) have little ability to affect things, so the toneof the dialogue is extremely adversarial.

It's hard to argue against PR on a moral basis. The opponents of PR argue on a basis of how difficult it would be to deliver. For the opponents, it's probably true, as they don't want it (because generally they wouldn't do as well) so they find issues that they present as unsolvable and a reason for keeping things the way they are. It's a common tactic, as shown by the EU "debate" (where both sides shout at each other and no-one changes their views).

These days, the concept of "regional representation" on national issues just doesn't exist. On the surface it looks like an MP represents a constituency, but much of the time that MP was a candidate parachuted into the area by the party (or they moved there because they could see the career opportunity) and is there to support their party, not the constituency. Some countries manage to separate national government from regional representation. We don't, in part because FPTP doesn't truly make that possible. It doesn't help that most people cast a vote for their "local MP" in an election but are really thinking of who they want to be in national government, not the local rep. Others are casting a tactical vote - in my Conservative majority constituency, a friend told me they voted Conservative for the first time ever last year (usually a Lib Dem voter) just to make sure UKIP didn't get in.

It shouldn't be beyond our ability to put a representative system into place and make it work, but it's unlikely to happen. The turkeys are in charge and they are voting to ban Xmas...

 

[sb_73]

I don't see it either. The current system made sense of a sort, 300 years ago, when it took days to get to London by horse. Communication was slow and regional representation at constituency level was important. It was developed at a time when many people (women, the poor) didn't even have the vote. Let's remember, Parliament was originally developed as a way of curbing the absolute power of royalty to the benefit of landowners, not the general population.

Today, of course, it is completely unrepresentative of the wishes of the population, encourages tactical voting and results in a majority government with twice as many people voting against them as for them if you just count the votes and ignore the constituency. That's one of the reasons we have so much conflict instead of cooperation. The winners (with 33%) don't have to cooperate and the losers (with 66%) have little ability to affect things, so the toneof the dialogue is extremely adversarial.

It's hard to argue against PR on a moral basis. The opponents of PR argue on a basis of how difficult it would be to deliver. For the opponents, it's probably true, as they don't want it (because generally they wouldn't do as well) so they find issues that they present as unsolvable and a reason for keeping things the way they are. It's a common tactic, as shown by the EU "debate" (where both sides shout at each other and no-one changes their views).

These days, the concept of "regional representation" on national issues just doesn't exist. On the surface it looks like an MP represents a constituency, but much of the time that MP was a candidate parachuted into the area by the party (or they moved there because they could see the career opportunity) and is there to support their party, not the constituency. Some countries manage to separate national government from regional representation. We don't, in part because FPTP doesn't truly make that possible. It doesn't help that most people cast a vote for their "local MP" in an election but are really thinking of who they want to be in national government, not the local rep. Others are casting a tactical vote - in my Conservative majority constituency, a friend told me they voted Conservative for the first time ever last year (usually a Lib Dem voter) just to make sure UKIP didn't get in.

It shouldn't be beyond our ability to put a representative system into place and make it work, but it's unlikely to happen. The turkeys are in charge and they are voting to ban Xmas...

Absolutely right. And we have huge proofs that we can operate different systems by looking at Scotland, Wales and London.

 

[cor blymie]

I thought we shaded the debate on the EU on QT last night. O'Leary opening sentence on the topic was the threat of 3,000 jobs if we leave, then later boasted of the 37m passengers he flew from Britain. A member of the audience, a Remanian, complained there was no positives coming from the Remain side, there ain't none. Only the threat of loss of jobs from the likes of the Ryanair boss. Where will you re-locate to Michael, Albania?

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

I don't see it either. The current system made sense of a sort, 300 years ago, when it took days to get to London by horse. Communication was slow and regional representation at constituency level was important. It was developed at a time when many people (women, the poor) didn't even have the vote. Let's remember, Parliament was originally developed as a way of curbing the absolute power of royalty to the benefit of landowners, not the general population.

Today, of course, it is completely unrepresentative of the wishes of the population, encourages tactical voting and results in a majority government with twice as many people voting against them as for them if you just count the votes and ignore the constituency. That's one of the reasons we have so much conflict instead of cooperation. The winners (with 33%) don't have to cooperate and the losers (with 66%) have little ability to affect things, so the toneof the dialogue is extremely adversarial.

It's hard to argue against PR on a moral basis. The opponents of PR argue on a basis of how difficult it would be to deliver. For the opponents, it's probably true, as they don't want it (because generally they wouldn't do as well) so they find issues that they present as unsolvable and a reason for keeping things the way they are. It's a common tactic, as shown by the EU "debate" (where both sides shout at each other and no-one changes their views).

These days, the concept of "regional representation" on national issues just doesn't exist. On the surface it looks like an MP represents a constituency, but much of the time that MP was a candidate parachuted into the area by the party (or they moved there because they could see the career opportunity) and is there to support their party, not the constituency. Some countries manage to separate national government from regional representation. We don't, in part because FPTP doesn't truly make that possible. It doesn't help that most people cast a vote for their "local MP" in an election but are really thinking of who they want to be in national government, not the local rep. Others are casting a tactical vote - in my Conservative majority constituency, a friend told me they voted Conservative for the first time ever last year (usually a Lib Dem voter) just to make sure UKIP didn't get in.

It shouldn't be beyond our ability to put a representative system into place and make it work, but it's unlikely to happen. The turkeys are in charge and they are voting to ban Xmas...

Good post. In relation to your last sentence though, I recall the turkeys did allow a vote for Christmas in 2011, and the punters voted against it...

 

[TheBigDipper]

Good post. In relation to your last sentence though, I recall the turkeys did allow a vote for Christmas in 2011, and the punters voted against it...

Thanks. I wasn't thinking about that referendum, actually, just the idea that politicians who benefit from the current system won't want to see it changed.

That referendum was (for me) presenting a flawed, difficult to justify version of a voting system that FPTP people wouldn't want and PR people rejected because it wasn't good enough. I didn't want what they proposed, either (although I did vote for it, (as the best of what was on offer - I wanted full PR, and still do). I think the Conservatives did a beautiful job of sabotaging the proposal so it wasn't fit for purpose and understandably got rejected yet delivered on their promise to the Lib Dems of having a referendum. Politics, eh?

 

[TootingExcess]

Thanks. I wasn't thinking about that referendum, actually, just the idea that politicians who benefit from the current system won't want to see it changed.

That referendum was (for me) presenting a flawed, difficult to justify version of a voting system that FPTP people wouldn't want and PR people rejected because it wasn't good enough. I didn't want what they proposed, either (although I did vote for it, (as the best of what was on offer - I wanted full PR, and still do). I think the Conservatives did a beautiful job of sabotaging the proposal so it wasn't fit for purpose and understandably got rejected yet delivered on their promise to the Lib Dems of having a referendum. Politics, eh?

Totally agree with this - that was project Fear at its most pure - real disinformation and scaremongering. "Why spend money changing the political system, when we can spend it on the NHS and schools" from both the Tories and Labour - and their acolytes in the media.It's why I want to punch Gove and IDS in their faces when I hear them talk about Project Fear for the EU-Ref. It's wholeheartedly their MO and has been for years...

 

[Chaz]

Don't get the sense behind your first paragraph at all. If 'back room deals' are done under PR they are done between elected representatives of a broad section of the electorate. Surely that is more democratic than the back room deals done within a single party with 30 odd percent of the electorates' backing as we have now - one result being a stupid and divisive referendum?

It's simple - if parties get votes based on a manifesto, and then they end up in coalition with a party whose manifesto differs on key points, those people then get together and need to negotiate the actual policy. So you could easily vote for a party on a single issue (which many do) and then not see that issue debated or changed for five years because a deal is struck with people you didn't vote for in order that power can be grasped.

With a majority FPTP government, that is a far rarer occurrence. And stuff gets done far more easily than if they have to have internal referendums on every point. You saw how the Lib Dems became vindictive whilst sharing power, and blocked a load of stuff because they didn't get their way on Trident and others.

 

[Chaz]

Thanks. I wasn't thinking about that referendum, actually, just the idea that politicians who benefit from the current system won't want to see it changed.

That referendum was (for me) presenting a flawed, difficult to justify version of a voting system that FPTP people wouldn't want and PR people rejected because it wasn't good enough. I didn't want what they proposed, either (although I did vote for it, (as the best of what was on offer - I wanted full PR, and still do). I think the Conservatives did a beautiful job of sabotaging the proposal so it wasn't fit for purpose and understandably got rejected yet delivered on their promise to the Lib Dems of having a referendum. Politics, eh?

Which, if you like, is the perfect example of an election manifesto being screwed up because of a coalition government in-fighting over what should and shouldn't be done, against the apparent desires of the populace.

 

[Chaz]

On another note - bad night for Labour. The Tories beating them into second party in Scotland (denying SNP overall control into the bargain), the official opposition losing seats to the incumbent government and other parties (albeit maybe not as many as they feared) which almost never happens in mid-term elections, and all this before the PCC and Mayoral election results are out.

The only glimmer for them seems to be that they only lost actual control of one council. But still - at a time in the election cycle when opposition parties traditionally do very well, they lost ground to their opponents across the board.

 

[Chaz]

Donald Trump has come out as a Brexit supporter.

Anyone need further incentive to vote Remain?

 

[Stroller]

A bad day for democracy......


UK's new polar research ship to be named RRS Sir David Attenborough, after Boaty McBoatface topped public vote

 

[TheBigDipper]

Which, if you like, is the perfect example of an election manifesto being screwed up because of a coalition government in-fighting over what should and shouldn't be done, against the apparent desires of the populace.

Indeed - which only happened because the seats were allocated on a FPTP system. If the same votes had been on a PR basis, the balance of power would have been more "balanced" and the votes would have been more representative of the wishes of the populace.

Chaz, we're never going to agree on this and we'll probably never see a change in our lifetimes.