2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 13:31:21 GMT
Isn't the Labour party a left wing party? Cede to who, you must have noticed the Centrists were wiped out at the election?  Labour centrists suffered because of the manifesto and being run by the left. People like Cooper, Benn, Phillips etc. were all re-elected, though. The more centrist Lib Dems were the party that gained the most votes, up to 3.7 million, but FPTP again smothers that. Tactical voting could have worked much better and I think it’s clear why it didn’t. First, the decision to create a distinction from Labour by revoking rather than referendum stopped that vote crossover, the distinction was unnecessary. Second, the sheer viciousness coming from the Momentumite left against anyone perceived as not left enough stopped much vote crossover. Lib Dems were harangued mercilessly, leading to many refusing to vote for a party that was insulting them, the atmosphere meant that the opposite also became inevitable. Blair kept winning because he realised that the enemy was only the Conservatives, nobody else. What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North East especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected. |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 13:33:03 GMT
Labour centrists suffered because of the manifesto and being run by the left. People like Cooper, Benn, Phillips etc. were all re-elected, though. The more centrist Lib Dems were the party that gained the most votes, up to 3.7 million, but FPTP again smothers that. Tactical voting could have worked much better and I think it’s clear why it didn’t. First, the decision to create a distinction from Labour by revoking rather than referendum stopped that vote crossover, the distinction was unnecessary. Second, the sheer viciousness coming from the Momentumite left against anyone perceived as not left enough stopped much vote crossover. Lib Dems were harangued mercilessly, leading to many refusing to vote for a party that was insulting them, the atmosphere meant that the opposite also became inevitable. Blair kept winning because he realised that the enemy was only the Conservatives, nobody else. What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North Eat especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected. Actually there was one problem with the manifesto, it was a broad set of policies across many areas. I'm not sure it would have made a difference in a Brexit election but there needed to be one policy to gather around, push and constantly refer to. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 13:50:47 GMT
We had a referendum on this in 2011 I think. I actually voted for PR as I thought the FPTP system disproportionally favoured Labour over the Tories. Alternative Vote (AV) is not proportional! I voted against it, for that reason. |
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 13:56:20 GMT
In spite of all this media brainwashing and manipulating, the voting majority still did not vote Conservative. They were just lucky that the FPTP election system gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority. The fact that the majority of people voted for something else is completely overlooked.
I think the minority that did vote conservative will get even smaller in years. I think it is a reaction of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of losing traditions, fear of progressiveness. New generations show that this is quickly changing. It's like a (in some ways understandable), last spasm of powerlessness, resulting in protective behaviour and voting against it, no mater if it costs them £2000,- a year, rips apart the complete UK and starts 10 years of uncertainty.
In 20 years the youth from now will have children of their own and a big part of elderly people with traditions that do not suit this day anymore will be gone. It's nature. Maybe already in 10 years. Change is coming like a landslide. I truly see this as a last spasm. I also think that there is no need for this chauvinism and that excellent trade deals (which are up for grabs now) with EU countries and a good attitude and harmony and forming a front in the world makes you stronger as a country and gives you more (self) respect. It's the future.
It's not a matter of "if" we will rejoin the EU, it's a matter of "when".
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 14:01:15 GMT
Labour centrists suffered because of the manifesto and being run by the left. People like Cooper, Benn, Phillips etc. were all re-elected, though. The more centrist Lib Dems were the party that gained the most votes, up to 3.7 million, but FPTP again smothers that. Tactical voting could have worked much better and I think it’s clear why it didn’t. First, the decision to create a distinction from Labour by revoking rather than referendum stopped that vote crossover, the distinction was unnecessary. Second, the sheer viciousness coming from the Momentumite left against anyone perceived as not left enough stopped much vote crossover. Lib Dems were harangued mercilessly, leading to many refusing to vote for a party that was insulting them, the atmosphere meant that the opposite also became inevitable. Blair kept winning because he realised that the enemy was only the Conservatives, nobody else. What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North East especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected. Too much to be credible. To gain a first term, focus on a few deliverables, other stuff can come later if that proves effective. On the voters Labour ‘abandoned’, it is more the case that they ‘abandoned’ labour. They have agency and used it, telling them what to believe rather than asking them what they needed is such a basic error to make. |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 14:10:00 GMT
What part of the manifesto did the centrists in the party suffer for? The manifesto was good. I thought it was abandoning supporters in the Midlands and North East especially that caused the problems with Labour not getting enough MP's elected. Too much to be credible. To gain a first term, focus on a few deliverables, other stuff can come later if that proves effective. On the voters Labour ‘abandoned’, it is more the case that they ‘abandoned’ labour. They have agency and used it, telling them what to believe rather than asking them what they needed is such a basic error to make. First sentence I agree with to certain extent, I loved the wide ranging proposals on offer. But this affected Labour centrists? It was vast swathes of voters choosing Brexit party in the Midlands and North East wasn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 14:20:02 GMT
Too much to be credible. To gain a first term, focus on a few deliverables, other stuff can come later if that proves effective. On the voters Labour ‘abandoned’, it is more the case that they ‘abandoned’ labour. They have agency and used it, telling them what to believe rather than asking them what they needed is such a basic error to make. First sentence I agree with to certain extent, I loved the wide ranging proposals on offer. But this affected Labour centrists? It was vast swathes of voters choosing Brexit party in the Midlands and North East wasn't it? For them. looking at the data, the primary reason was Corbyn and his politics, they'd given him the benefit of the doubt two years ago but no longer. If they had abstained it would have been the same result, if they had voted Labour still there would still be a good working majority for the Conservatives, given how close they were last time. Time and time again they were told to ditch Corbyn and they refused, it's not as though they weren't given the opportunity. Labour only has itself to blame. If they'd had a more credible leader, then the candidates on the doorstep would have had an easier task. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 14, 2019 14:24:13 GMT
55% of 18 to 34 year olds voted for Labour and only 23% of those over 55.
I have been impressed with the engagement of all the young people I have campaigned with over the last few weeks.
A generation who have only known the right to live, love freely and work wherever they choose without the rose tinted glasses for a Britain long gone and most probably never existed.
The future of Labour belongs to this generation, they definitely have a different perspective on society which is doing its best to exclude them from the privileges that my generation were given and subsequently took for granted.
This is the true impact/legacy of Corbyn, couldn’t imagine hundreds of thousands of my peers at eighteen joining a Party let alone participating in Politics and he even got me knocking on doors something I would never have countenanced until the last few years.
The future is theirs and looking forward to coming along for the ride.
|
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 14:29:20 GMT
First sentence I agree with to certain extent, I loved the wide ranging proposals on offer. But this affected Labour centrists? It was vast swathes of voters choosing Brexit party in the Midlands and North East wasn't it? For them. looking at the data, the primary reason was Corbyn and his politics, they'd given him the benefit of the doubt two years ago but no longer. If they had abstained it would have been the same result, if they had voted Labour still there would still be a good working majority for the Conservatives, given how close they were last time. Time and time again they were told to ditch Corbyn and they refused, it's not as though they weren't given the opportunity. Labour only has itself to blame. If they'd had a more credible leader, then the candidates on the doorstep would have had an easier task. I think choosing a remain policy was far more telling, a policy led by the centrists. Policy had to be to respect the referendum, as soon as Labour became remain it was going to be very difficult in the North |
|
2,340 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Dec 14, 2019 14:31:34 GMT
55% of 18 to 34 year olds voted for Labour and only 23% of those over 55. I have been impressed with the engagement of all the young people I have campaigned with over the last few weeks. A generation who have only known the right to live, love freely and work wherever they choose without the rose tinted glasses for a Britain long gone and most probably never existed. The future of Labour belongs to this generation, they definitely have a different perspective on society which is doing its best to exclude them from the privileges that my generation were given and subsequently took for granted. This is the true impact/legacy of Corbyn, couldn’t imagine hundreds of thousands of my peers at eighteen joining a Party let alone participating in Politics and he even got me knocking on doors something I would never have countenanced until the last few years. The future is theirs and looking forward to coming along for the ride. Did you ask who they would elect as the next leader? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 14:44:00 GMT
For them. looking at the data, the primary reason was Corbyn and his politics, they'd given him the benefit of the doubt two years ago but no longer. If they had abstained it would have been the same result, if they had voted Labour still there would still be a good working majority for the Conservatives, given how close they were last time. Time and time again they were told to ditch Corbyn and they refused, it's not as though they weren't given the opportunity. Labour only has itself to blame. If they'd had a more credible leader, then the candidates on the doorstep would have had an easier task. I think choosing a remain policy was far more telling, a policy led by the centrists. Policy had to be to respect the referendum, as soon as Labour became remain it was going to be very difficult in the North The policy was referendum, not remain, wasn't it? :confused: I was a supporter of a similarly powerless Labour party throughout the eighties. High ideals and zero reward. Whilst I was promoting the unattainable in my twenties my father lost his job twice and my mother had to work three jobs at one point. I'm ashamed of it now but I reasoned that it was worth the high of 'being right', rather than having a government that would go further towards helping them. I'm hoping that people don't make a similar mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 16:42:58 GMT
In spite of all this media brainwashing and manipulating, the voting majority still did not vote Conservative. They were just lucky that the FPTP election system gives almost unbridled power to the largest minority. The fact that the majority of people voted for something else is completely overlooked. I think the minority that did vote conservative will get even smaller in years. I think it is a reaction of fear, fear of the unknown, fear of losing traditions, fear of progressiveness. New generations show that this is quickly changing. It's like a (in some ways understandable), last spasm of powerlessness, resulting in protective behaviour and voting against it, no mater if it costs them £2000,- a year, rips apart the complete UK and starts 10 years of uncertainty. In 20 years the youth from now will have children of their own and a big part of elderly people with traditions that do not suit this day anymore will be gone. It's nature. Maybe already in 10 years. Change is coming like a landslide. I truly see this as a last spasm. I also think that there is no need for this chauvinism and that excellent trade deals (which are up for grabs now) with EU countries and a good attitude and harmony and forming a front in the world makes you stronger as a country and gives you more (self) respect. It's the future. It's not a matter of "if" we will rejoin the EU, it's a matter of "when". We aren't even out of the EU yet. Imagine the fun and games if we wanted to rejoin. How different things would have been if we hadn't had the referendum. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 16:45:00 GMT
Chuka was apparently the person the Tories feared when Labour were looking to elect a leader to replace Ed Miliband and he was seen as a frontrunner for that job before he declined to run. The guy has a good media image, good speaker and has a bit of gravitas about him. There was maybe a bit of the British Obama hype but he ticked a lot of boxes for a potential leader in my books. Jumping ship and being in 3 parties in one year has tarnished him but he increased his new parties share of the vote hugely in the seat he contested. Also a lot of the people who left the Labour Party had been deselected, were older and coming towards the end of their political career but Chuka certainly wasn't. So popular with the Tory party? They were worried that he'd become leader as they saw him as a potentially formidable foe. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2019 16:48:05 GMT
If the younger voters hugely supported Labour then they must have hemorrhaged votes amongst the older people to be down 8% and lose 2.5 million votes. The Marxists in Russia couldn't even make that many people disappear under Stalin.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Dec 14, 2019 17:15:53 GMT
For clarification and minimise the risk of spreading misinformation here is where I got my numbers from.
How Britain voted and why: My 2019 general election post-vote poll Friday, 13 December, 2019 in Elections by Lord Ashcroft Polls
I surveyed over 13,000 people on election day who had already cast their vote, to help understand how this extraordinary result came about. The results show who voted for whom, and why.
The demographics:
Labour won more than half the vote among those turning out aged 18-24 (57%) and 25-34 (55%), with the Conservatives second in both groups. The Conservatives were ahead among those aged 45-54 (with 43%), 55-64 (with 49%) and 65+ (with 62%).
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Dec 14, 2019 18:01:31 GMT
The voice of experience eh?
|
|
311 posts
|
Post by olliebean on Dec 14, 2019 20:48:59 GMT
We had a referendum on this in 2011 I think. I actually voted for PR as I thought the FPTP system disproportionally favoured Labour over the Tories. Alternative Vote (AV) is not proportional! I voted against it, for that reason. It's a lot better than FPTP, though, not least because it means a candidate cannot win if the majority of voters in their constituency are against them. But I understand the reasoning, that we're more likely (if still not very, especially with the Tories in power) to get a shot at true PR in the foreseeable future than we would be had we already switched to a different new system relatively recently. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 14, 2019 22:35:19 GMT
If you lump votes together and dish out a number of seats, how do you keep that link with each local group? My favoured system is Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies. So you'd have larger constituencies - somewhere around the size of EU constituencies - which would have several MPs. That means that in most constituencies you'd have the opportunity to approach an MP who aligns with your point of view. If you want help with a welfare problem, you might go to a Labour MP in your constituency. If you want help about legislation that's affecting your small business, you may prefer to approach your Conservative MP. It gets away from the problem with FPTP that potentially a minority of constituents get exactly who they want, and the others don't. If you live in Islington North and want to lobby for more relaxed employment laws, where do you go to lobby Parliament? I'm not a fan of PR systems like those in Scotland and Wales where there are two classes of representatives, constituency reps and "top up" reps - I think that introduces a two-tier system. As for looking at evidence, well we're no good at coalition government because it was clear in 2010 that it was only for one term, so both member parties were quietly positioning themselves for the next election, they had no incentive to build long-term relationships where they could work together on initiatives over a longer period of time, so you can't really compare an enforced coalition in a FPTP system with a true PR coalition. And yes, they can hit stalemate, but what's happened in the UK since 2017? The ultimate hope - for me - in a PR system is for a realignment of the UK system into more parties, which better reflect the multiple opinions of the electorate. So many people this time said that they felt unrepresented - with PR in due course we'd have had a right-wing pro-Europe party, a left-wing party that supported more federalism or independence... yes, there would be a period of realignment and change, but I think more people would feel connected to politicians. |
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Dec 14, 2019 23:09:11 GMT
STV with multiple member constituencies is not an option as far as I am concerned.
Firstly, constituencies the size of the current EU ones means that none of the MPs would have a real grip on the area they were elected to serve. They couldn't run local surgeries. They wouldn't have the contacts with the relevant local councils. They would be divorced from the reality of life in the whole of their constituencies.
Secondly, it puts all the power in hands of the party machines - it immediately removes the ability of the vote to vote for a particular candidate. You can only vote for a party and so the party gets to decide who is where on the list and who gets to be your representative. If a member resigns, you don't get a by-election, the party managers just appoint the next person down on the list. If there is a MP who underperforms, you can't vote against them personally next time round - you can only vote against their party.
We would be destroying the link between the MP and a specific geographic area. We would be removing the ability of voters to choose their representative.
Neither of these things enhance democracy
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 23:10:35 GMT
If the younger voters hugely supported Labour then they must have hemorrhaged votes amongst the older people to be down 8% and lose 2.5 million votes. The Marxists in Russia couldn't even make that many people disappear under Stalin. Actually they did, the voting majority was just ignored by the FPTO system that lets the biggest minority win. |
|
527 posts
|
Post by danielwhit on Dec 14, 2019 23:13:30 GMT
I've long been an advocate for what I'd refer to as "county MPs" where 4-6 MPs are elected using a PR system. It has the advantage that more of the voters feel as if their vote has been useful and means that local voters have an MP of the party they voted for to deal with any constituency concerns.
Anything larger than 4-6 MPs per constituency would start leading to extremely large areas and diminish the relationship between MP and constituency, however on a small scale I can see nothing but benefits.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Dec 14, 2019 23:14:02 GMT
FPTP I feel is the best system. First, you only have to look at what happens here when we have coalition minority government, and the stalemates of other nations who have PR systems to see what really works. Second, you have to break down FPTP. The nation is divided into constituencies. Each individual constituency chooses among themselves someone to represent them in Parliament. That's as democratic as you can get. You have a local community choosing who they want to send. If you lump votes together and dish out a number of seats, how do you keep that link with each local group? What you describe only works if there are 2 parties. If more, it's not democratic any longer. |
|
2,761 posts
|
Post by n1david on Dec 14, 2019 23:21:29 GMT
Secondly, it puts all the power in hands of the party machines - it immediately removes the ability of the vote to vote for a particular candidate. You can only vote for a party and so the party gets to decide who is where on the list and who gets to be your representative. If a member resigns, you don't get a by-election, the party managers just appoint the next person down on the list. If there is a MP who underperforms, you can't vote against them personally next time round - you can only vote against their party. This isn't the case in "true STV". For example, if you are in a constituency which has 4 MPs, there would be up to 4 candidates from each party. So you can vote for Labour Linda and Conservative Catherine as options 1 and 2, but choose not to give any preference to Conservative Colin or Labour Larry. You can vote for one Women's Equality Party candidate and give the rest of your preferences to a more mainstream party. You could choose between a Eurosceptic candidate or a Europhile one from the same party. It actually reduces party power - right now you can only vote for the single candidate the party selects, so if you end up with (e.g.) Kate Hoey or Jared O'Mara, you're stuck with them. True STV actually lets you select between candidates of the same party, and if there's a by-election, there is a proper by-election between one candidate from each party to fill the gap. What you're describing is the Party List system, to which I'm vehemently opposed for exactly the reasons you state. |
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 14, 2019 23:28:22 GMT
The stone hard fact is that the type of voting system isn’t going to change in the next. 5 years, this government will run its full course. They will take us out of EU and if the economy does well, they will be re-elected, on the ticket that ‘the bloke with messy hair took us out of the EU and against the odds maintained a strong and stable economy.’
Other than that it would be open season.
Labour needs someone that is not tarnished by anti-semitism and move away from this toxic momentum group and then endorse the best parts of both new and old labour and have a oven ready manifesto for the 2024 election. Where Europe maybe ancient history or.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Dec 14, 2019 23:29:50 GMT
Secondly, it puts all the power in hands of the party machines - it immediately removes the ability of the vote to vote for a particular candidate. You can only vote for a party and so the party gets to decide who is where on the list and who gets to be your representative. If a member resigns, you don't get a by-election, the party managers just appoint the next person down on the list. If there is a MP who underperforms, you can't vote against them personally next time round - you can only vote against their party. This isn't the case in "true STV". For example, if you are in a constituency which has 4 MPs, there would be up to 4 candidates from each party. So you can vote for Labour Linda and Conservative Catherine as options 1 and 2, but choose not to give any preference to Conservative Colin or Labour Larry. You can vote for one Women's Equality Party candidate and give the rest of your preferences to a more mainstream party. You could choose between a Eurosceptic candidate or a Europhile one from the same party. It actually reduces party power - right now you can only vote for the single candidate the party selects, so if you end up with (e.g.) Kate Hoey or Jared O'Mara, you're stuck with them. True STV actually lets you select between candidates of the same party, and if there's a by-election, there is a proper by-election between one candidate from each party to fill the gap. What you're describing is the Party List system, which I'm vehemently opposed to for exactly the reasons you state. That is completely bogus. 100% Linda would be a Conservative |
|
