Emily Thornberry

[AndrewJB]

I 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.

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.

[AndrewJB]

And so it goes on........
Take your heads out of the sand.
It was as clear as the nose on Neil Warnock's face that certain groups and individuals were hell bent on thwarting the 17.4 m and millions of remain voters who accepted the Referendum result.

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).

[Vino blanco]

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!!

[elwaclaret]

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.

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.... that
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.

[dsr]

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.

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?

But if you insult one person, do you insult the whole world? Or are Muslims different?

[Corky]

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.

[AndrewJB]

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?

But if you insult one person, do you insult the whole world? Or are Muslims different?

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.

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...

[thomaspaine]

We wouldn't have her.

Really! Not ruthless and one eyed enough then.

[tim_noone]

Tony Blair top Labour man...Loads of Money. Definitely not fit to serve the working people.and he would sell his own mutha.

[Nonayforever]

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.

It's lucky for the Labour party that Boris isn't running for leader.
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 ?

[AndrewJB]

Let's start with you. Why did you vote for Boris? Then we'll go from there.

[Clarets4me]

Let's start with you. Why did you vote for Boris? Then we'll go from there.

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 !

[Nonayforever]

Let's start with you. Why did you vote for Boris? Then we'll go from there.

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.

[AndrewJB]

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 !

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.

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.

[claretonthecoast1882]

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.

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.

Fair play you are certainly loyal to your loved one

[taio]

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.

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.

Been done to death. The electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Tory government. You lost. That's democracy - move on.

[AndrewJB]

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.

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.

[Corky]

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.

Not to forget; stopping the privatisation of the NHS.

[Clarets4me]

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.

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.

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.

[Cryssys]

Tony Blair top Labour man...Loads of Money. Definitely not fit to serve the working people.and he would sell his own mutha.

What are you babbling on about? What has Tony Blair got to do with anything?

Muppet.

[Cryssys]

Been done to death. The electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Tory government. You lost. That's democracy - move on.

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

[taio]

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

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]

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.

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.

[Clarets4me]

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

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 ...

[AndrewJB]

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.

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.

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.

[Cryssys]

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 ...

Agreed. My problem is with Taio who stated, and I quote, "The electorate voted overwhelmingly for a Tory government."

It didn't.

[tim_noone]

What are you babbling on about? What has Tony Blair got to do with anything?

Muppet.

What a well Balanced and reasoned response. But you knew that anyway. Thank you.

[taio]

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.

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]

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.

I don't like the voting system.

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.

[Bosscat]

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.....

[Blackrod]

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.

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.

Absolute nonsense.

[Cryssys]

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.....

Sorry, 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?

[Bosscat]

Sorry, 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?

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.....

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....

[Cryssys]

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.....

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....

I have always argued against the FPTP system because it is undemocratic yet you can't be arsed debating democracy.

[AndrewJB]

I have always argued against the FPTP system because it is undemocratic yet you can't be arsed debating democracy.

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.

[clarethomer]

I prefer her more flamboyant twin personally

B3KQPPvCMAAk7cR.jpg (42.47 KiB) Viewed 1106 times

[houseboy]

Absolute nonsense.

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.

[houseboy]

I have always argued against the FPTP system because it is undemocratic yet you can't be arsed debating democracy.

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.

[clarethomer]

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.

To 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.

[Devils_Advocate]

https://www.mondialisation.ca/the-mains ... yn/5536703

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research ... -FINAL.pdf

[AndrewJB]

More here too:

https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/gen ... /report-1/

[houseboy]

To 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.

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.
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.

[Cryssys]

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

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.

[houseboy]

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.

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).

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.

[Cryssys]

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).

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.

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.

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

[houseboy]

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.

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

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.
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.

[Cryssys]

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.
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.

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.

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.