587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Feb 20, 2019 11:58:25 GMT
Option poll now done that says 10% of the country would vote for this new movement. As they have no policies and no leader and their one unique selling point seems to be they hate everyone else in politics this confirms my view that we might as well give up now...... They should call themselves 'None of the Above' party, they'd get a lot more than 10%...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 12:14:03 GMT
Anna Soubry jumping ship was always on the cards like Luciana Berger she has had a lot of hate and trolling for a different reason.
The Anti-Semitic views and being against some of the actions of the state of Israel are differing things in my view. It could be we deplore the actions of ISCIS but likely have many Muslim friends who we get on well with and know how they interpret their faith is far different from the radical views held by certain fanatics.
A lot of the historic issues relate to the creation of Israel bang in the middle of a load of Muslim countries as Neil as above.
I vote Tory so I'd class myself as right wing but I'd never want to be considered in the same category as the far right neanderthal knuckle draggers.
With this new party and the Labour Party's issues with alleged Antisemitism I wonder if the new party might reach out to David Miliband if he ever left his job at the International Rescue Committee in New York. David as a former Foreign Secretary would give the party a lot of extra credibility and would be a clear choice as leader even over the younger and highly rated Chuka Umunna. But David would need to find a seat if he wanted to return to Parliament and having him as leader outside of the Commons might cause issues. Also David is on a rumoured 300k salary in NY so would take a financial hit if he went back into front line politics and could take up business/media interests and a likely seat in the Lords when he does leave his current role.
|
|
301 posts
|
Post by Sam on Feb 20, 2019 12:20:47 GMT
Option poll now done that says 10% of the country would vote for this new movement. As they have no policies and no leader and their one unique selling point seems to be they hate everyone else in politics this confirms my view that we might as well give up now...... They should call themselves 'None of the Above' party, they'd get a lot more than 10%...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2019 13:04:11 GMT
It’s hard to say I support them as they haven’t outlined their policies (nor formed an actual political party yet), but I support their intentions. Politics in the UK is a tired business. The results from the last few general elections (and referendum) indicate we are a country divided.
No party has had a comfortable win since Tony Blair won in 2005 (the Tory win in 2015 was hardly comfortable) and that indicates that the current parties aren’t working - they simply don’t represent enough people in order to secure a comfortable majority.
The thing is, the Labour Party keeps moving more to the left and the Tories keep moving (or trying) to move further to the right. Both have in fighting and internal differences on a way forward. Yet they both seem to forget that Tony Blair won by moving towards the centre and that David Cameron won by doing exactly the same.
The Tory party is a party that is publicly divided and Labour offers no strong alternative. I’ve always said Labour offers progression and then the Tory party come in to sort out the finances afterwards, and that has largely worked.
But now it isn’t and rather than spend time working on fixing their own parties and resolving issues, a group of MPs have opted to say ‘sod it’ and start afresh. Which frankly, is quite refreshing and it doesn’t surprise me if people are watching with interest.
Post Brexit we need something new and a party with a clear direction for the future. Any party that offers something new and different to Labour and the Conservatives at this stage is going to get interest... and what better way to offer something ‘new’ by being something new?
Good luck I say. UK Politics is in desperate need of a shake up.
|
|
3,927 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Feb 20, 2019 19:09:02 GMT
Heidi Allen is my MP. At least her defection has resolved the dilemma I thought I was going to have at the next election: I've always voted Conservative but didn't want to vote for someone who has been so publically disloyal to their party's leadership.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 20, 2019 21:43:26 GMT
As an outside observer I have often felt there should be five main national political parties in UK rather than two and a half so that people would feel more represented by who they vote for. Trouble with this is that the centre party would always be the power-broker, and therefore present in all coalitions, effectively becoming a permanent party of government even if only a small minority voted for them,
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 20, 2019 22:18:41 GMT
As an outside observer I have often felt there should be five main national political parties in UK rather than two and a half so that people would feel more represented by who they vote for. Trouble with this is that the centre party would always be the power-broker, and therefore present in all coalitions, effectively becoming a permanent party of government even if only a small minority voted for them, Not necessarily, look at the German Grand Coalition of left and right parties SPD and CDU/CSU or the godawful current Italian one, with populists of various colours from Five Star (not the eighties pop band) and the fascistic League.
|
|
1,177 posts
|
Post by joem on Feb 20, 2019 22:25:14 GMT
As an outside observer I have often felt there should be five main national political parties in UK rather than two and a half so that people would feel more represented by who they vote for. Trouble with this is that the centre party would always be the power-broker, and therefore present in all coalitions, effectively becoming a permanent party of government even if only a small minority voted for them, Not necessarily, look at the German Grand Coalition of left and right parties SPD and CDU/CSU or the godawful current Italian one, with populists of various colours from Five Star (not the eighties pop band) and the fascistic League. Exceptions that don't negate the rule. Look at the FDP in Germany, spent like 30 years in government with less than 10% of the vote. Or the Christian Democrats in Italy, they were there in most governments for 40 odd years.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 20, 2019 22:31:33 GMT
Replying to a few different points - Phantom of London - not understanding is a poor reason to keep the status quo, education on a different voting system and how it treats votes more equally is key. There are many different systems, some more immediately transparent and understandable than others. A voting system needs to be understood by all regardless of education, or you are open again to the elitist argument, exactly the argument used successfully by UKIP. Speaking of shortcakes, this system allows shortcakes in.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 20, 2019 22:55:43 GMT
Not necessarily, look at the German Grand Coalition of left and right parties SPD and CDU/CSU or the godawful current Italian one, with populists of various colours from Five Star (not the eighties pop band) and the fascistic League. Exceptions that don't negate the rule. Look at the FDP in Germany, spent like 30 years in government with less than 10% of the vote. Or the Christian Democrats in Italy, they were there in most governments for 40 odd years. In Italy the Christian Democrats were the largest party, not a third party and they were more a broad church (literally) from centre right to centre left, rather than being specifically centrist. Germany has had the centrist party, the FDP, in coalition for only four years since the millennium. It is no longer seen as a major potential government player. I can see how those invested in either left or right don’t like a strong centrist party but, to me, it neuters the extremes with that being a good thing.
|
|
5,585 posts
|
Post by lynette on Feb 20, 2019 22:57:42 GMT
And they take Derek Hatton back in. In case any of your are too young to remember ( that is most of you ...) who he is, he practically bankrupted Liverpool.
|
|
4,631 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Feb 20, 2019 23:01:58 GMT
Why didn’t these politicians just cross the floor to the Liberal Democrat’s, their aims seem to be identical, like new Labour was Liberal Democrat’s in different clothing, has their name now became so toxic to the voters, that these 11 thought it be easier to start a new movement?
However I can see many more politicians from all 3 parties, joining this 11, buoyed by the early success of Macron. They say a day is a long time in politics, at the moment an hour is an eternity.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 20, 2019 23:05:36 GMT
Replying to a few different points - Phantom of London - not understanding is a poor reason to keep the status quo, education on a different voting system and how it treats votes more equally is key. There are many different systems, some more immediately transparent and understandable than others. A voting system needs to be understood by all regardless of education, or you are open again to the elitist argument, exactly the argument used successfully by UKIP. Speaking of shortcakes, this system allows shortcakes in. It separates ‘shortcakes’ out from mainstream parties. First past the post promotes entryism (definitely the case with labour now and, arguably, with conservatives and the party within a party of the ERG). Better to separate them and, if people do vote for them, as in the German AFD, Italian League, French National Rally etc, then the scale of the problem is, at least, visible and more mainstream parties still there. I fail to see how ranking parties by number rather than a cross is, in any way, difficult or elitist, It is much more elitist to suggest that people are too stupid to understand ranked voting. Maybe the Northern Irish are far more clever than the rest of us, as they’ve coped perfectly well with the more complex Single Transferable Vote for decades! Scots will also be used to mixed member voting, with two votes, one for a constituency and one for a party list. The idea that people don’t understand anything beyond First Past The Post is so way off from the reality,
|
|
2,959 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Feb 20, 2019 23:07:58 GMT
Why didn’t these politicians just cross the floor to the Liberal Democrat’s Not sure about the others, but I think Chuka Ummuna wants to be a Macron figure and he couldn't do that using the Lib Dems as a base - I doubt they'd make a Johnny-come-lately party leader.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 20, 2019 23:09:48 GMT
Why didn’t these politicians just cross the floor to the Liberal Democrat’s, their aims seem to be identical, like new Labour was Liberal Democrat’s in different clothing, has their name now became so toxic to the voters, that these 11 thought it be easier to start a new movement? However I can see many more politicians from all 3 parties, joining this 11, buoyed by the early success of Macron. They say a day is a long time in politics, at the moment an hour is an eternity. Social Democracy and Liberalism are very different. A more useful party system would be able to reflect that difference. Just a couple of examples - firstly, remember ID cards? Social Democrat Blairite idea, opposed ideologically by liberals wary of state power. Secondly, the difference between a more laissez faire, liberal economic approach (think Lib Dem orange bookers) versus state intervention from Social Democrats (Tax Credits etc.).
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 21, 2019 0:58:30 GMT
Replying to a few different points - Oxfordsimon - points all taken although you, yourself admit that there are systems that keep the constituency link. On lists of fodder candidates, any party doing that will lose support if that is what voters do not want. The chances of parties springing up in response is increased and voters get a chance to vote elsewhere instead. Many is the constituency under FPTP stuck with a similar type of MP under the current sytem anyway. I agree that there shouldn’t be automatic replacement after resignations and such, as there should be a chance for a new vote under current circumstances, again there are ways of doing that through a new constituency vote if a constituency link is maintained. On your last point, I see ‘trading’ as a good thing (others may not) but a manifesto is a starting point, to me, not a fixed thing. I know there are PR systems that do keep some form of constituency link - but I have never been convinced by their merits. If we were to move to a revised system, I would far rather explore a run-off mechanism - so that you have a second round of voting between the top two candidates in the event of no candidate securing 50% first time round. That way every MP can be certain of having secured 50%+1 of the votes cast - thus increasing legitimacy. I prefer run offs over ranked candidates as it allows for further scrutiny of the top two candidates and a more informed choice. I appreciate this means more voting - but I am happy to find 10 minutes to do that. I would also get rid of postal voting on demand - there should, of course, be a postal vote system - but it should be under limited circumstances. Voting should be done as close to the end of the campaign as possible - so that candidates can be tested and votes cast accordingly. Postal votes are too open to fraud and are cast without full knowledge of the candidates and their campaigns. I do believe that the manifesto is the only chance that voters have to assess a party platform. And I don't find post-election trading to be democratic - you can end up with a government platform that was never tested by the electorate and I do not find that acceptable. I know that things like voter ID and creating equal sized constituencies have proved controversial - but I have never understood why. It should not be easier to vote than it is to take out a library book or apply for a travel card - we already have Voter ID in Northern Ireland (and it is common in many other European democracies). The NI system does not cost voters anything in terms of acquiring the required form of ID and has not diminished turnout. And as citizens, our votes should have equal weight. So constituencies should be roughly equivalent in size (10% tolerance is fine). It should not be desirable to have a system with the significant disparities that have long been part of our boundaries. Yes, I do spend a lot of time thinking about our electoral system. I have looked at many alternatives and they tend to have more flaws than the FPTP option that we have. It needs some improving - but not scrapping.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 21, 2019 1:17:04 GMT
Briefly - Agree with a vote run off as being a decent option, although I fear it would merely reinforce a limited number of parties and not allow for people to vote positively and to see that vote count. I’d be happier with a two vote Scottish type system. Allows for more accurate representation and keeps a constituency link. Not a fan of postal voting either, for similar reasons. I’d also add computerised voting either in person or by voting machines. It may be old school but having physical copies of votes is the biggest factor in stopping electoral fraud. Voter ID? Not an issue, for me. Impersonation is such a tiny issue that it would only serve as a proxy for voter suppression, as it is used across the US. A hammer to crack a tiny nut. Some areas, particularly rural, need a smaller electorate, I think but, in general, should be pretty equal. There is one insanely large Australian constituency that covers most of Western Australia. Madness! en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_DurackWe”ll have to agree to disagreee on manifestos, To see them as a wish list, that has greater and lesser priorities is more honest. In a system where sole party government is becoming less and less the rule, I think that, to take any set of proposals as being wholly deliverable, is misleading.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 21, 2019 12:29:15 GMT
The Scottish system was an attempt to design something that would prevent one party from dominating. On that test, it has failed. I also find it over-complicated.
I have to disagree with regards to Voter ID - there is zero evidence of voter suppression in the case of NI - which is far more pertinent than any US examples. I don't think having to show your polling card or similar is too much to ask anyone who wishes to participate in our electoral system. I know of a number of people who were almost denied a vote because of human error in terms of marking up the register in the polling station - anything that makes our voting system more robust is a good thing. It isn't to do with attempting to deny anyone their right to vote, it is about making sure that those voting are actually entitled to do so. Telling a polling clerk your name and address is not enough.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 21, 2019 13:32:27 GMT
In the Scottish voting system, the parties tend to get within a few percentage points of seats, compared to their vote. That seems much fairer to me and, if a party polls over 50% or not far short it then they should be getting a majority of seats. What is wrong with that?
The area of electoral fraud that is the most serious is coercion/bribery as allegedly in Tower Hamlets. Voter ID would do nothing to combat that. There are areas far more deserving of any time and effort than personation which, by its nature, is isolated and, for those trying it, virtually impossible to try and sway a result, even in a local council election, let alone a national one.
|
|
Xanderl
Member
Not always very high value in terms of ticket yield or donations
|
Post by Xanderl on Feb 21, 2019 14:00:05 GMT
To bring this almost back to the topic of the forum, I was amused to read that a lot of journalists assumed that former Conservative minister Philip Lee was one of yesterday's defectors, as (like the other three) he wasn't answering his phone the previous evening - turned out he had it turned off as he was in the cinema.
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 21, 2019 16:31:55 GMT
Top marks for Mr Lee for proper cinema etiquette
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Feb 21, 2019 16:51:59 GMT
😄
That brings to mind The Thick Of It when a possible leadership contender had "gone dark" and broken contact, sending all the spinners into an overnight panic for the entire episode. It turned out he'd gone home and gone to bed.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Feb 21, 2019 16:53:21 GMT
I did think Lee was a Tory possible, maybe Nick Boles too. Lots of focus on Greening today.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Feb 22, 2019 10:54:37 GMT
Now Ian Austin has left Labour and gone independent, but has not joined the Independent Group. So he is an independent who is independent from the Independent Group, who are independents as part of a group of independents. It's possible that other MPs would leave to go independent but would also choose to be independent of the Independent Group, but may still want to form an independent Independent Group of independents, which would be independent of the other independents in the Independent Group. But even if that happens, some of those independents might wish to stay independent of the independents who've formed an independent group independent from the Independent Group, and would therefore be independents who were independent from both the independents who've formed an independent group independent from the independents in the first independent Group, and the independents in the first Independent Group.
I suppose it all depends.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2019 11:08:20 GMT
Now Ian Austin has left Labour and gone independent, but has not joined the Independent Group. So he is an independent who is independent from the Independent Group, who are independents as part of a group of independents. It's possible that other MPs would leave to go independent but would also choose to be independent of the Independent Group, but may still want to form an independent Independent Group of independents, which would be independent of the other independents in the Independent Group. But even if that happens, some of those independents might wish to stay independent of the independents who've formed an independent group independent from the Independent Group, and would therefore be independents who were independent from both the independents who've formed an independent group independent from the independents in the first independent Group, and the independents in the first Independent Group. I suppose it all depends. Mornington Crescent.
|
|
999 posts
|
Post by Backdrifter on Feb 22, 2019 11:27:07 GMT
Now Ian Austin has left Labour and gone independent, but has not joined the Independent Group. So he is an independent who is independent from the Independent Group, who are independents as part of a group of independents. It's possible that other MPs would leave to go independent but would also choose to be independent of the Independent Group, but may still want to form an independent Independent Group of independents, which would be independent of the other independents in the Independent Group. But even if that happens, some of those independents might wish to stay independent of the independents who've formed an independent group independent from the Independent Group, and would therefore be independents who were independent from both the independents who've formed an independent group independent from the independents in the first independent Group, and the independents in the first Independent Group. I suppose it all depends. Mornington Crescent. I knew I'd put it in the wrong thread.
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 22, 2019 11:43:46 GMT
The parties splitting into like minded factions is inevitable now that First Past the Post has become unstable. What’s the point of trading off your beliefs for stability if that stability has become chaos? There are really more than twenty ‘parties’ within the current ones, they’ve just been hidden (and not very well hidden at that).
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Feb 22, 2019 18:23:22 GMT
|
|
2,706 posts
|
Post by Cardinal Pirelli on Feb 24, 2019 13:43:52 GMT
On the Labour side it wouldn’t be a surprise if Louise Ellman is one of the next few to depart; Liverpool MP, Jewish, in a very similar position to Berger. From the Conservative side it’s May’s behaviour this week that will push matters. I think it’s unlikely that she (or Corbyn) will stand up to her party’s extremists, so the ERG will stay put, brazening it out, whilst moderates like Greening or Sandbach go.
There is, interestingly, a not insignificant chance of a complete breakdown of the parties over the votes (or non votes) this week. If May tries to postpone then scores of Conservatives may rebel, some just threatening to leave but a significant number doing so. Similarly, if Corbyn keeps refusing to back a second referendum then Labour will also splinter. What might be necessary to finally get us out of this hellhole is, quite conceivably in fact, the breakdown of the party system.
EDIT: Just seen the news breaking that May is, indeed, postponing the vote, maybe until the middle of March. This is insanity.
|
|
1,907 posts
|
Post by sf on Feb 24, 2019 15:25:51 GMT
EDIT: Just seen the news breaking that May is, indeed, postponing the vote, maybe until the middle of March. This is insanity. At the very least, it demonstrates absolute, unyielding contempt for both Parliament and the electorate. Matthew Parris's hatchet-job in the Times the other day appears to be right on target:
|
|