Why hold Labour to such higher standards than the absolute muppet we currently have as PM? Thornberry posted a photo, but Johnson has insulted an entire city. He’s insulted gay people, black people, women, and Muslims. He’s far more out of touch than any of the Labour candidates, and whereas they do it for live of country, he’s doing it for love of self.elwaclaret wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 10:09 amI can see why she has been a successful barrister.... she presents herself with an air of someone who has it worked out.
.... unfortunately, believing as passionately as she does, she cannot see the errors in her formula. So it is perhaps just as well she hasn’t a snowball in hell’s chance.
After saying that I have not heard too much from the others to suggest a great or even competent leader for Labour beckons.
Emily Thornberry
Re: Emily Thornberry
This user liked this post: elwaclaret
Re: Emily Thornberry
So you say, but the levers of power are in the hands of leave, so from here on in you won’t be able to scapegoat remainers (though I dare say many leavers will try).
-
- Posts: 5363
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1978 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
The referendum decision was to leave and this has eventually been carried out, Boris has an 80 seat majority in spite of apparently losing the arguments in the election, and if my memory serves me right Burnley is now a shade of true Tory blue. What more could ask for, happy days!!
This user liked this post: Blackrod
-
- Posts: 8987
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 am
- Been Liked: 2009 times
- Has Liked: 2904 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
It is purely the point blank refusal to admit A WISH LIST is not a manifesto. I could not argue with one part of labours plan (though the internet offer was frankly strange) but it was not realistic.... thatAndrewJB wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:15 pmWhy hold Labour to such higher standards than the absolute muppet we currently have as PM? Thornberry posted a photo, but Johnson has insulted an entire city. He’s insulted gay people, black people, women, and Muslims. He’s far more out of touch than any of the Labour candidates, and whereas they do it for live of country, he’s doing it for love of self.
Mrs Thornberry seems to be trying to play Labour lite, while refusing to admit the mistakes within the campaign is the same head in the sand approach the party on the whole used to Brexit..... look how well voters reacted to that.
Nothing against her (even the policies) but it just does not wash. Making a mistake is ok when you learn from it.... Labour seem to work on a plan keep pushing until everyone realise how good we are, rather than appeal to those they need. They can never win until they change.
Re: Emily Thornberry
Actually, Johnson was very careful not to say that men who insist their wives wear pillar boxes are vile, oppressive, misogynists who deserve every oppobrium. Give him credit for that. I would have said it, but he is perhaps more tolerant. You of course would say that's fine, men are not at all in the wrong to insist on that, because to say otherwise would be yo insult muslims, presumably?AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:15 pmWhy hold Labour to such higher standards than the absolute muppet we currently have as PM? Thornberry posted a photo, but Johnson has insulted an entire city. He’s insulted gay people, black people, women, and Muslims. He’s far more out of touch than any of the Labour candidates, and whereas they do it for live of country, he’s doing it for love of self.
But if you insult one person, do you insult the whole world? Or are Muslims different?
This user liked this post: jrtod61
Re: Emily Thornberry
It seems to me that a lot of ordinary people and political commentators are trying to make out that to a significant extent Labour lost the recent election due to the general voting public not believing in or feeling they could engage with their manifesto pledges. The truth I feel is much more simplistic. People generally had got completely fed up with the whole Brexit farce. They wanted an end to it, or at least what they thought was an end, regardless of the consequences. So, when you got Boris a know liar cheat racist misogynist etc etc saying simply vote Tory and we will get Brexit done that was enough for them to get a healthy majority, regardless of who they were actually voting for. Not helped of course by the pathetic response of Labour to obfuscate and generally waffle on about a peoples vote or another referenda. What was contained in Manifestos then became largely inconsequential which was why I believe the Tories had a very slimmed down tome. They won because of a three word strap line.
Re: Emily Thornberry
You presume wrong. I've never said it's fine for men to force women to wear certain kinds of clothing, or vice versa. And to be honest, I don't understand how you would draw a conclusion that in order not to offend people I would say something is acceptable that I don't think is acceptable. To me that is casting aside one's principles just to get along. Maybe this is something you are happy to do, so therefore assume everyone else does it too? Enlighten us.dsr wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 2:40 pmActually, Johnson was very careful not to say that men who insist their wives wear pillar boxes are vile, oppressive, misogynists who deserve every oppobrium. Give him credit for that. I would have said it, but he is perhaps more tolerant. You of course would say that's fine, men are not at all in the wrong to insist on that, because to say otherwise would be yo insult muslims, presumably?
But if you insult one person, do you insult the whole world? Or are Muslims different?
I think the way women dress has a lot to do with societal norms, and as we live in a patriarchal society (or patriarchal world), then you could boil it down to: it's men telling women what to wear, everywhere. High heels, makeup, and figure revealing (or enhancing) wear is the rule for women in a lot of companies. Even companies run by women demand this, and of course there are a lot of women who choose this kind of attire.
Where I now work - in East London, which is very mixed - I meet women of every culture and background, so Muslim women wearing the hijab, and those without any headscarf at all (and everything in between), along with women dressed provocatively, or (literally) in dressing gowns (or for sport), and those attired for a corporate environment.
Importantly for you, a parent who covers her head came to a birthday party at my house a couple of years ago. While there she described how she lived in the same area as a youngster (in the same way many people lived at the same age), and how she chose to cover her head when she got married. It was her choice. Another woman who does the full hijab is from Newcastle and is as British as you could get. According to female friends, she's a hot blonde, and chose this path after she split up with her husband - who isn't Muslim.
So there are many stories, but it's not all as simple as "my husband makes me wear this".
Looking forward to your anger against high heels...
-
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:20 pm
- Been Liked: 83 times
- Has Liked: 362 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
Really! Not ruthless and one eyed enough then.
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 4384 times
- Has Liked: 15117 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
Tony Blair top Labour man...Loads of Money. Definitely not fit to serve the working people.and he would sell his own mutha.
-
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 699 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
It's lucky for the Labour party that Boris isn't running for leader.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2020 1:15 pmWhy hold Labour to such higher standards than the absolute muppet we currently have as PM? Thornberry posted a photo, but Johnson has insulted an entire city. He’s insulted gay people, black people, women, and Muslims. He’s far more out of touch than any of the Labour candidates, and whereas they do it for live of country, he’s doing it for love of self.
According to Andrew JB he has absolutely no good qualities whatsoever, but by some strange reason he's the PM.
By default therefore, what qualities do the Labour candidates have ?
Re: Emily Thornberry
Let's start with you. Why did you vote for Boris? Then we'll go from there.
-
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
- Been Liked: 2339 times
- Has Liked: 1040 times
- Location: Ightenhill,Burnley
Re: Emily Thornberry
1) He wasn't Corbyn !
2) The thought of McDonnell as Chancellor, Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and Lady Nugee at the Foreign Office put many people off ..
3) Get Brexit done ! People, some Remain voters as well as Leavers were fed up, let's move on !
4) He exuded optimism ! Most of us are proud to be British, Corbyn seems to be embarrassed to be so ...
5) If this Country's so bad, why are people risking life and limb to get here ?
6) People went to the voting booth, and thought, " Corbyn's not redistributing my f*****g wealth ! ", and voted Conservative
7) Very few people thought Labour's figure's added up ...
8) Er .... that's it !
UTC !
This user liked this post: jrtod61
-
- Posts: 3315
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 8:15 pm
- Been Liked: 699 times
- Has Liked: 174 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
Because people like you, who supposedly support Labour, can't extol the virtues of the Labour party on thread's such as this or the " next leader" thread's.
All you do is try to belittle the Tories.
Decent people he sick of it.
Re: Emily Thornberry
You didn’t vote FOR Johnson, but you swallowed the anti-Corbyn nonsense. Put side by side the Labour manifesto was far more pro British than the Tory one, because it was for the average person, rather than the rich. And anyone factually standing in the voting booth worried that they’d be worse off would have to be earning £80K or more a year, so your reasoning is off kilter or you believed the rubbish in the Sun with most of your list.Clarets4me wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:19 pm1) He wasn't Corbyn !
2) The thought of McDonnell as Chancellor, Diane Abbott as Home Secretary and Lady Nugee at the Foreign Office put many people off ..
3) Get Brexit done ! People, some Remain voters as well as Leavers were fed up, let's move on !
4) He exuded optimism ! Most of us are proud to be British, Corbyn seems to be embarrassed to be so ...
5) If this Country's so bad, why are people risking life and limb to get here ?
6) People went to the voting booth, and thought, " Corbyn's not redistributing my f*****g wealth ! ", and voted Conservative
7) Very few people thought Labour's figure's added up ...
8) Er .... that's it !
UTC !
As for Johnson “getting Brexit done” that’s just more marketing nonsense. We’re in a transition period during which he’s got to negotiate the biggest trade deal in our history, or we end up with WTO terms which will be a massive hit to our economy. That’s not done. And compared to Labour’s plan of renegotiating an exit that keeps most of the economic pluses, Johnson’s plan is sheer recklessness. And you say he’s optimistic? No. He says optimistic things. Reality however doesn’t change with his words.
-
- Posts: 10165
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4186 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
Fair play you are certainly loyal to your loved oneAndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:07 amYou didn’t vote FOR Johnson, but you swallowed the anti-Corbyn nonsense. Put side by side the Labour manifesto was far more pro British than the Tory one, because it was for the average person, rather than the rich. And anyone factually standing in the voting booth worried that they’d be worse off would have to be earning £80K or more a year, so your reasoning is off kilter or you believed the rubbish in the Sun with most of your list.
As for Johnson “getting Brexit done” that’s just more marketing nonsense. We’re in a transition period during which he’s got to negotiate the biggest trade deal in our history, or we end up with WTO terms which will be a massive hit to our economy. That’s not done. And compared to Labour’s plan of renegotiating an exit that keeps most of the economic pluses, Johnson’s plan is sheer recklessness. And you say he’s optimistic? No. He says optimistic things. Reality however doesn’t change with his words.
Re: Emily Thornberry
Been done to death. The electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Tory government. You lost. That's democracy - move on.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:07 amYou didn’t vote FOR Johnson, but you swallowed the anti-Corbyn nonsense. Put side by side the Labour manifesto was far more pro British than the Tory one, because it was for the average person, rather than the rich. And anyone factually standing in the voting booth worried that they’d be worse off would have to be earning £80K or more a year, so your reasoning is off kilter or you believed the rubbish in the Sun with most of your list.
As for Johnson “getting Brexit done” that’s just more marketing nonsense. We’re in a transition period during which he’s got to negotiate the biggest trade deal in our history, or we end up with WTO terms which will be a massive hit to our economy. That’s not done. And compared to Labour’s plan of renegotiating an exit that keeps most of the economic pluses, Johnson’s plan is sheer recklessness. And you say he’s optimistic? No. He says optimistic things. Reality however doesn’t change with his words.
This user liked this post: jrtod61
Re: Emily Thornberry
I’m a Green Party member, but would have been very happy with a Labour government. The environment would have been better looked after and more jobs created with a green revolution. Taxing the rich more would have made money available for public services, which need more money. Our foreign policy would be more ethical, and we’d stop sending home Windrush people on the flimsiest evidence (or lack of it). Owning our own railways rather than foreign governments running them was something I also thought positive. I championed all of these things for years on here, but people only talked about how Corbyn didn’t bow low enough at the Cenotaph, so hated the country, and other such nonsense, and this was about as profound as it got. I’m doing nothing more than continuing the conversation, though rather than smearing Johnson, I’m sticking with facts.Nonayforever wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:04 amBecause people like you, who supposedly support Labour, can't extol the virtues of the Labour party on thread's such as this or the " next leader" thread's.
All you do is try to belittle the Tories.
Decent people he sick of it.
This user liked this post: longsidepies
Re: Emily Thornberry
Not to forget; stopping the privatisation of the NHS.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:34 amI’m a Green Party member, but would have been very happy with a Labour government. The environment would have been better looked after and more jobs created with a green revolution. Taxing the rich more would have made money available for public services, which need more money. Our foreign policy would be more ethical, and we’d stop sending home Windrush people on the flimsiest evidence (or lack of it). Owning our own railways rather than foreign governments running them was something I also thought positive. I championed all of these things for years on here, but people only talked about how Corbyn didn’t bow low enough at the Cenotaph, so hated the country, and other such nonsense, and this was about as profound as it got. I’m doing nothing more than continuing the conversation, though rather than smearing Johnson, I’m sticking with facts.
-
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
- Been Liked: 2339 times
- Has Liked: 1040 times
- Location: Ightenhill,Burnley
Re: Emily Thornberry
I don't consider I swallowed any nonsense, the left say Corbyn was " smeared ", I suggest the press just pointing out Mr Corbyn's activities over the past 35 years, showcased some of Mr McDonnell's more unsavory remarks ( Travelling back in time to kill Thatcher, honouring the IRA for their " struggle ", the " Lynch the bitch " chanting ), and highlighted some of Ms Abbott's failings. At present, the top earning 5% pay over 50% of all Income Tax, the highest figure on record. People aren't stupid, they knew that Labour's figures didn't add up, and down the line, someone would have to pay for it. That someone is always the tax-payer.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:07 amYou didn’t vote FOR Johnson, but you swallowed the anti-Corbyn nonsense. Put side by side the Labour manifesto was far more pro British than the Tory one, because it was for the average person, rather than the rich. And anyone factually standing in the voting booth worried that they’d be worse off would have to be earning £80K or more a year, so your reasoning is off kilter or you believed the rubbish in the Sun with most of your list.
As for Johnson “getting Brexit done” that’s just more marketing nonsense. We’re in a transition period during which he’s got to negotiate the biggest trade deal in our history, or we end up with WTO terms which will be a massive hit to our economy. That’s not done. And compared to Labour’s plan of renegotiating an exit that keeps most of the economic pluses, Johnson’s plan is sheer recklessness. And you say he’s optimistic? No. He says optimistic things. Reality however doesn’t change with his words.
These 4 users liked this post: ClaretMoffitt tiger76 jrtod61 Vino blanco
Re: Emily Thornberry
Only 43.6% of the country voted Tory so the electorate did not overwhelmingly vote for a Tory Government. Put it another way, the majority of the country (56.4 %) did not want a Tory government.
Don't let the facts get in the way get in the way of your prejudices though
Re: Emily Thornberry
Under the present voting system the electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Tory government hence the significant majority they now have and terrible result for Labour. That is fact so shove you prejudices reference up your ass.Cryssys wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:44 pmOnly 43.6% of the country voted Tory so the electorate did not overwhelmingly vote for a Tory Government. Put it another way, the majority of the country (56.4 %) did not want a Tory government.
Don't let the facts get in the way get in the way of your prejudices though
This user liked this post: jrtod61
Re: Emily Thornberry
What a well balanced and reasoned response.
It seems you have a problem with facts/basic maths. Less than 44% of the country voted Tory, its not even a majority let alone overwhelming.
To be overwhelming it would need to be significantly in excess of 50%.
Alternatively, please explain how 44% is overwhelming.
-
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:31 pm
- Been Liked: 2339 times
- Has Liked: 1040 times
- Location: Ightenhill,Burnley
Re: Emily Thornberry
True, but then again 67.8% of the Country didn't want a Labour Government .... you have to go back to 1931, to get a winning party with over 50% of the popular vote ...Cryssys wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:44 pmOnly 43.6% of the country voted Tory so the electorate did not overwhelmingly vote for a Tory Government. Put it another way, the majority of the country (56.4 %) did not want a Tory government. Don't let the facts get in the way get in the way of your prejudices though
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: Emily Thornberry
Of course the media smeared him. They made things up about him. There were academic papers written on the subject, so huge was the bias. Even news stories were spun in such a way as to shine a negative light. Where were the investigative stories into Johnson's past? It was completely one-sided.Clarets4me wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:14 pmI don't consider I swallowed any nonsense, the left say Corbyn was " smeared ", I suggest the press just pointing out Mr Corbyn's activities over the past 35 years, showcased some of Mr McDonnell's more unsavory remarks ( Travelling back in time to kill Thatcher, honouring the IRA for their " struggle ", the " Lynch the bitch " chanting ), and highlighted some of Ms Abbott's failings. At present, the top earning 5% pay over 50% of all Income Tax, the highest figure on record. People aren't stupid, they knew that Labour's figures didn't add up, and down the line, someone would have to pay for it. That someone is always the tax-payer.
As for the Labour's numbers not adding up, the Tories didn't produce any. Johnson just (and continues to do so) made promise after promise, with some vague noises about a tax on internet giants. Yet the media persuaded you to think critically about Labour, but not about the Tories.
Re: Emily Thornberry
Agreed. My problem is with Taio who stated, and I quote, "The electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Tory government."Clarets4me wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:51 pmTrue, but then again 67.8% of the Country didn't want a Labour Government .... you have to go back to 1931, to get a winning party with over 50% of the popular vote ...
It didn't.
-
- Posts: 17108
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
- Been Liked: 4384 times
- Has Liked: 15117 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
What a well Balanced and reasoned response. But you knew that anyway. Thank you.
This user liked this post: jrtod61
Re: Emily Thornberry
The choices made by the electorate mean that the Tories have 365 seats and Labour 202. That's an overwhelming victory. Together with the fact that Tories got over 3.5m more votes than Labour. Just say you don't like the voting system rather than argue it wasn't an overwhelming victory.Cryssys wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:05 pmWhat a well balanced and reasoned response.
It seems you have a problem with facts/basic maths. Less than 44% of the country voted Tory, its not even a majority let alone overwhelming.
To be overwhelming it would need to be significantly in excess of 50%.
Alternatively, please explain how 44% is overwhelming.
Re: Emily Thornberry
I don't like the voting system.taio wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:24 pmThe choices made by the electorate mean that the Tories have 365 seats and Labour 202. That's an overwhelming victory. Together with the fact that Tories got over 3.5m more votes than Labour. Just say you don't like the voting system rather than argue it wasn't an overwhelming victory.
But it doesn't alter the fact that out of the 32M votes cast the Tories only received 13.9M. That's not overwhelming.
The fact that it has given them an overwhelming majority in the HOC just goes to show that there's something wrong with our voting system.
Re: Emily Thornberry
I don't tend to get involved in political debates (apart from trying to make a joke or two) but......
There is a lot of talk about our voting system... moving from FPP to Prop Rep or AV.....
I would much rather have our 'first past the post' system than risk a hung Parliament every 5 years with no overall majority.
Look at the problem they are having in Ireland with a now 3 way split of the vote.....
If 'BJ and co' don't cut it, then in 4 years and 10 months we can go to the polls and see if we can get someone that can.
Its worked for a long time now and it works.....
There is a lot of talk about our voting system... moving from FPP to Prop Rep or AV.....
I would much rather have our 'first past the post' system than risk a hung Parliament every 5 years with no overall majority.
Look at the problem they are having in Ireland with a now 3 way split of the vote.....
If 'BJ and co' don't cut it, then in 4 years and 10 months we can go to the polls and see if we can get someone that can.
Its worked for a long time now and it works.....
Re: Emily Thornberry
Absolute nonsense.AndrewJB wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:54 pmOf course the media smeared him. They made things up about him. There were academic papers written on the subject, so huge was the bias. Even news stories were spun in such a way as to shine a negative light. Where were the investigative stories into Johnson's past? It was completely one-sided.
As for the Labour's numbers not adding up, the Tories didn't produce any. Johnson just (and continues to do so) made promise after promise, with some vague noises about a tax on internet giants. Yet the media persuaded you to think critically about Labour, but not about the Tories.
Re: Emily Thornberry
Sorry, but that last bit is a rehash of "but we've always done it this way". It doesn't mean it's right.Bosscat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:06 pmI don't tend to get involved in political debates (apart from trying to make a joke or two) but......
There is a lot of talk about our voting system... moving from FPP to Prop Rep or AV.....
I would much rather have our 'first past the post' system than risk a hung Parliament every 5 years with no overall majority.
Look at the problem they are having in Ireland with a now 3 way split of the vote.....
If 'BJ and co' don't cut it, then in 4 years and 10 months we can go to the polls and see if we can get someone that can.
Its worked for a long time now and it works.....
With regard to "and it works," I would argue that it doesn't.
If we have any regard for democracy and the will of the people how can we justify giving complete control of the country to a party that received less than 44% of the votes cast? In what way is that fair, democratic or representative of the will of the people.
Just imagine someone was proposing the FPTP system for the first time. Would you be in favour of it?
Re: Emily Thornberry
Wonders if the labour party had got in with 365 to the Tories 202 with a similar share of the vote we would be talking about it.....Cryssys wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:51 pmSorry, but that last bit is a rehash of "but we've always done it this way". It doesn't mean it's right.
With regard to "and it works," I would argue that it doesn't.
If we have any regard for democracy and the will of the people how can we justify giving complete control of the country to a party that received less than 44% of the votes cast? In what way is that fair, democratic or representative of the will of the people.
Just imagine someone was proposing the FPTP system for the first time. Would you be in favour of it?
Needless to say I very much doubt it.....
End of conversation as I do not wish to get into a protracted debate about a subject I cannot be arsed with....
Re: Emily Thornberry
I have always argued against the FPTP system because it is undemocratic yet you can't be arsed debating democracy.Bosscat wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:56 pmWonders if the labour party had got in with 365 to the Tories 202 with a similar share of the vote we would be talking about it.....
Needless to say I very much doubt it.....
End of conversation as I do not wish to get into a protracted debate about a subject I cannot be arsed with....
Re: Emily Thornberry
Tory Party - 38K votes for each MP elected. Labour - 50K votes for each MP elected. LibDems - 340K votes for each MP elected. Green Party - nearly a million votes and one MP elected. It's a broken system.
-
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:24 am
- Been Liked: 944 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
I prefer her more flamboyant twin personally
This user liked this post: Bosscat
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Emily Thornberry
To be fair bud no it isn't. He was actually destroyed by the media and even many of my Tory friends concede he was the victim of a hate campaign not seen in British politics for many a long year, if ever. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of him, in the end he was utterly destroyed by a hate campaign and that is not good for democracy.
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Emily Thornberry
Our system is not perfect but it is difficult to find one that is. PR is a bit of a disaster as it leads to 'weak' government that can't get anything done. It is rare for a party in this country to get more than 50% of the vote share (and I don't think ever in modern times) so how would a government ever get anything done if it was stopped at every turn. You would wind up with minority parties like the dreaded Lib Dems courting power and holding sway. 1st past the post is not great but I think it at least allows a government to govern (most of the time). You only need to look in the direction of Italy to see an excellent example of PR not working.
-
- Posts: 3118
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:24 am
- Been Liked: 944 times
- Has Liked: 411 times
Re: Emily Thornberry
To be fair, yes it is nonsensehouseboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:12 pmTo be fair bud no it isn't. He was actually destroyed by the media and even many of my Tory friends concede he was the victim of a hate campaign not seen in British politics for many a long year, if ever. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks of him, in the end he was utterly destroyed by a hate campaign and that is not good for democracy.
Many of my tory friends felt that the media was biased.
Many of my labour voting friends felt the media was biased
Many of my liberal voting friends felt the media was biased
Many of my green voting friends felt the media was biased
Many of my ice sculpture voting friends thought channel 4 was biased
The nonsense is that the media appeared biased to everyone regardless of who they voted for because when it reported things that someone disagreed with they saw this as showing bias.
-
- Posts: 12366
- Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:43 pm
- Been Liked: 5209 times
- Has Liked: 921 times
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Emily Thornberry
To generalise my statement like that is missing the point. He was accused of anti-semitism. He isn't anti-semitic. Even some jewish organisations have said this.clarethomer wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 10:24 pmTo be fair, yes it is nonsense
Many of my tory friends felt that the media was biased.
Many of my labour voting friends felt the media was biased
Many of my liberal voting friends felt the media was biased
Many of my green voting friends felt the media was biased
Many of my ice sculpture voting friends thought channel 4 was biased
The nonsense is that the media appeared biased to everyone regardless of who they voted for because when it reported things that someone disagreed with they saw this as showing bias.
He was accused of 'supporting' terrorism because of some of his actions (particularly the IRA), but he is NOT a man who supports violence any more than the Tories being kept afloat by the Ulster Unionists ex-terrorists are supporeters of terrorism. There is a difference between 'bias' and twisting the truth and downright character assasination, which Corbyn was a victim of. Very few people I know agree with what happened to him in the media, even if they don't like him.
Re: Emily Thornberry
houseboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 4:20 pmOur system is not perfect but it is difficult to find one that is. PR is a bit of a disaster as it leads to 'weak' government that can't get anything done. It is rare for a party in this country to get more than 50% of the vote share (and I don't think ever in modern times) so how would a government ever get anything done if it was stopped at every turn. You would wind up with minority parties like the dreaded Lib Dems courting power and holding sway. 1st past the post is not great but I think it at least allows a government to govern (most of the time). You only need to look in the direction of Italy to see an excellent example of PR not working
I understand your views but the far more important issue is whether the FPTP system is fair, democratic and does it produce a HOC that reflects the views of the electorate. The answer is a resounding no on all counts. Once you accept that you then have to decide what can be done to make the system fairer and more representative.
Italy is always held up as a scare story re PR and is the exception. PR is used and works well in over 87 countries world wide. As for your comment re the Lib Dems, look what the Ulster Unionists did in the last Parliament.
If we want to avoid further polarisation and create an environment where people feel that they are included and that their opinions are represented then we need a parliament that reflects the views of the electorate. FPTP consistently produces parliaments that are unrepresentative and badly skewed in favour of the big two.
Many people complain that there is no middle ground in UK politics anymore and that there is no point in voting unless it's Labour or Tory. This is because the FPTP system alienates a lot of people. It's old, unfair and no longer fit for purpose.
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Emily Thornberry
PR may work in some countries but I confess I don't know where for sure, and I agree totally about the Ulster Unionists. But it all depends on what people want from democracy. Like most people I am a big fan of democracy but in the case of our nation I'm not sure PR would work. Is something more democratic (PR) better than something that gives stable government? PR in this country would leave parliament (and therefore democracy) open to abuse through 'deals' being done behind closed doors and minority parties (of any persuasion) having far MORE power than under the present system. There have even been (and maybe still are) examples of countries with no democracy at all working reasonably well. What would be bad for this or any other nation is having weak and stagnated government that gets nothing done because of the squabbling in parliament (see Brexit).Cryssys wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 10:13 amI understand your views but the far more important issue is whether the FPTP system is fair, democratic and does it produce a HOC that reflects the views of the electorate. The answer is a resounding no on all counts. Once you accept that you then have to decide what can be done to make the system fairer and more representative.
Italy is always held up as a scare story re PR and is the exception. PR is used and works well in over 87 countries world wide. As for your comment re the Lib Dems, look what the Ulster Unionists did in the last Parliament.
If we want to avoid further polarisation and create an environment where people feel that they are included and that their opinions are represented then we need a parliament that reflects the views of the electorate. FPTP consistently produces parliaments that are unrepresentative and badly skewed in favour of the big two.
Many people complain that there is no middle ground in UK politics anymore and that there is no point in voting unless it's Labour or Tory. This is because the FPTP system alienates a lot of people. It's old, unfair and no longer fit for purpose.
Democracy is all well and good but if that democracy meant that the people of this or any other country were worse off because of it then democracy would not be working. Government, despite what many people think, is there to make the people feel secure and reasonably comfortable (at least that is the theory) and if any form of democracy didn't deliver that it would be a failure.
Re: Emily Thornberry
Your response is your opinion but it's fails to address the problem of inherent bias in the current electoral system. Further up the thread I asked the question "how can you justify giving complete control of the country to a party that polled less than 44%?" So far nobody has been able to provide a good answer.houseboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 12:39 pmPR may work in some countries but I confess I don't know where for sure, and I agree totally about the Ulster Unionists. But it all depends on what people want from democracy. Like most people I am a big fan of democracy but in the case of our nation I'm not sure PR would work. Is something more democratic (PR) better than something that gives stable government? PR in this country would leave parliament (and therefore democracy) open to abuse through 'deals' being done behind closed doors and minority parties (of any persuasion) having far MORE power than under the present system. There have even been (and maybe still are) examples of countries with no democracy at all working reasonably well. What would be bad for this or any other nation is having weak and stagnated government that gets nothing done because of the squabbling in parliament (see Brexit).
Democracy is all well and good but if that democracy meant that the people of this or any other country were worse off because of it then democracy would not be working. Government, despite what many people think, is there to make the people feel secure and reasonably comfortable (at least that is the theory) and if any form of democracy didn't deliver that it would be a failure.
Similarly, how can justify a system where 1.2m votes gets the SNP 42 MP's whilst 3.9m votes only got the Lib Dems 11 MP's? How is that Democratic? How does that reflect the views of the electorate?
Re countries that have PR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... by_country
-
- Posts: 7065
- Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2017 4:43 pm
- Been Liked: 2238 times
- Has Liked: 1617 times
- Location: Baxenden
Re: Emily Thornberry
The difficulty with the 'Scottish situation' is another matter and you are totally right. I think any country with devolved power should have less say than THEY have in 'national' matters but it is a logistical problem I suppose.Cryssys wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:11 pmYour response is your opinion but it's fails to address the problem of inherent bias in the current electoral system. Further up the thread I asked the question "how can you justify giving complete control of the country to a party that polled less than 44%?" So far nobody has been able to provide a good answer.
Similarly, how can justify a system where 1.2m votes gets the SNP 42 MP's whilst 3.9m votes only got the Lib Dems 11 MP's? How is that Democratic? How does that reflect the views of the electorate?
Re countries that have PR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... by_country
Your mention of 'complete' control to a party with only 44% is interesting. The first past the post system would work better if the boundaries didn't keep getting fooled around with for political purposes and constituencies were pretty much all equal in size. But rather than anyone justifying the 44% in complete control how would you justify a minority party having power out of all context with regard to it's votes polled? No-one is saying our system is perfect, me included, but I was just pointing out the potential severe pitfalls of PR.
FPTP is not completely democratic but, by and large, it works most of the time.
PR is more democratic but can lead to unstable and weak government, which is not in the national interest, and can also lead to small parties wealding far more power than they deserve, which IS undemocratic.
If the 44% get it wrong they can be removed after 5 years or less.
If PR is a mess then we are stuck with it because the likelihood of changing things to any great degree at a general election would all but disappear.
Re: Emily Thornberry
A considered response and one that is appreciated. I'm pleased that you acknowledge that PR is more democratic. In some respects that should be sufficient reason for changing to it.houseboy wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2020 1:33 pmThe difficulty with the 'Scottish situation' is another matter and you are totally right. I think any country with devolved power should have less say than THEY have in 'national' matters but it is a logistical problem I suppose.
Your mention of 'complete' control to a party with only 44% is interesting. The first past the post system would work better if the boundaries didn't keep getting fooled around with for political purposes and constituencies were pretty much all equal in size. But rather than anyone justifying the 44% in complete control how would you justify a minority party having power out of all context with regard to it's votes polled? No-one is saying our system is perfect, me included, but I was just pointing out the potential severe pitfalls of PR.
FPTP is not completely democratic but, by and large, it works most of the time.
PR is more democratic but can lead to unstable and weak government, which is not in the national interest, and can also lead to small parties wealding far more power than they deserve, which IS undemocratic.
If the 44% get it wrong they can be removed after 5 years or less.
If PR is a mess then we are stuck with it because the likelihood of changing things to any great degree at a general election would all but disappear.
I think the bit about small parties holding the country to ransom is overstating it as for any policy to implemented it would still require the majority of MP's to vote for it. It would certainly take our politicians, who are used to adversarial politics, sometime to come to terms with idea of working together and identifying policies they can agree on and implement for the common good. Many countries, including some of the most successful and stable, find that PR works well so I fail to see why the UK should be any different.
In the long term I believe that PR would lead to more stability. The current system polarises opinion rather seeking common ground and we are dragged one way and then the other by opposing groups.