|
Post by Amadan on Jul 14, 2024 10:25:35 GMT
Would that still be true if turn out were the same in this election? Who knows. That's not really the point. Unpopular as Corbyn was, he still garnered more to vote for Labour than Starmer has. My take: Corbyn had popular policies but was an unpopular leader. Starmer doesn't have any policies, and isn't that popular, but isn't the Tories. The good news is that little is expected of him, or the government, and they have a huge majority, so they do have the political opportunity to prove me wrong. I dont think Corbyn was an unpopular leader as the mainstream media would like to make out , but I do agree with the gist of your post. I dont think these new labour liberal centrist realise that winning at all cost with no morals or principles , using a dodgy electoral system to do so , and pushing political debate down to the bottom of the barrel in terms of saying we know we are shit , but at least we aren't as shit as the tories is conducive to a healthy democracy and society at large. FPTP has given the uk a new prime minister who is essentially a policy free blank piece of paper with no morals or principles . No wonder so many people were completely turned off voting.
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 10:33:41 GMT
That's not really the point. Unpopular as Corbyn was, he still garnered more to vote for Labour than Starmer has. My take: Corbyn had popular policies but was an unpopular leader. Starmer doesn't have any policies, and isn't that popular, but isn't the Tories. The good news is that little is expected of him, or the government, and they have a huge majority, so they do have the political opportunity to prove me wrong. I dont think Corbyn was an unpopular leader as the mainstream media would like to make out , but I do agree with the gist of your post. I dont think these new labour liberal centrist realise that winning at all cost with no morals or principles , using a dodgy electoral system to do so , and pushing political debate down to the bottom of the barrel in terms of saying we know we are shit , but at least we aren't as shit as the tories is conducive to a healthy democracy and society at large. FPTP has given the uk a new prime minister who is essentially a policy free blank piece of paper with no morals or principles . No wonder so many people were completely turned off voting. Whilst I'm in favour of PR, it's difficult to argue that Labour used a dodgy system, as the system has been used historically, which has produced results. The LibDems, and to an extent Labour, targetted specific seats, which is how the system works, and both have been successful with this. Reform didn't really do this, they tried to attack the whole country, but didn't have the resources (or the personnel) to make this pay. You can criticise the system, but all parties knew how this worked before the election, some made it work for them, others failed.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 14, 2024 10:44:34 GMT
I dont think Corbyn was an unpopular leader as the mainstream media would like to make out , but I do agree with the gist of your post. I dont think these new labour liberal centrist realise that winning at all cost with no morals or principles , using a dodgy electoral system to do so , and pushing political debate down to the bottom of the barrel in terms of saying we know we are shit , but at least we aren't as shit as the tories is conducive to a healthy democracy and society at large. FPTP has given the uk a new prime minister who is essentially a policy free blank piece of paper with no morals or principles . No wonder so many people were completely turned off voting. Whilst I'm in favour of PR, it's difficult to argue that Labour used a dodgy system, as the system has been used historically, which has produced results. The LibDems, and to an extent Labour, targetted specific seats, which is how the system works, and both have been successful with this. Reform didn't really do this, they tried to attack the whole country, but didn't have the resources (or the personnel) to make this pay. You can criticise the system, but all parties knew how this worked before the election, some made it work for them, others failed. im fully aware of that Andrew. Im also fully aware that labour were quietly disturbed that they failed to hit the long term accepted benchmark for majority governments of 40% plus. This is the lowest percentage of support for any majority government in uk history since universal suffrage. It wasn't that labour targeted specific seats Andrew. It's more that the tories and snp vote fell past them massively , while they themselves were down on support from the previous election. Apart from reform uk surging vote share , it appeared to be the uk electorate saying a plague on all your houses from what I can see , including to the snp in scotland. I have criticised the system for over twenty years Andrew , whoever has won. You are telling me , a scot , whose country has never voted one nation tories in history , and haven't voted the Scottish tories since 1955 , but have had them foisted on us anyway , that the system is bad , but that how it works? Why do you think everyone outside of England who listens to the English chattering classes talk of the mother of all parliaments , the beacon of western democracy and all the other tripe they come out with has us rolling on the floor howling? My point this election this is the worst result fptp has thrown up yet , and how bad does it have to be before people sit up and take notice of the democratic deficit ? zany , Steve , and all the other status quo types , deep down you can see they are really terribly upset that the uk isnt getting back in its box and going back to the old two party system of years gone by. We are in a multi party system now , with an out of date fptp giving extremely disproportionate results to what the voters want.
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 11:00:35 GMT
Whilst I'm in favour of PR, it's difficult to argue that Labour used a dodgy system, as the system has been used historically, which has produced results. The LibDems, and to an extent Labour, targetted specific seats, which is how the system works, and both have been successful with this. Reform didn't really do this, they tried to attack the whole country, but didn't have the resources (or the personnel) to make this pay. You can criticise the system, but all parties knew how this worked before the election, some made it work for them, others failed. im fully aware of that Andrew. Im also fully aware that labour were quietly disturbed that they failed to hit the long term accepted benchmark for majority governments of 40% plus. This is the lowest percentage of support for any majority government in uk history since universal suffrage. It wasn't that labour targeted specific seats Andrew. It's more that the tories and snp vote fell past them massively , while they themselves were down on support from the previous election. Apart from reform uk surging vote share , it appeared to be the uk electorate saying a plague on all your houses from what I can see , including to the snp in scotland. I have criticised the system for over twenty years Andrew , whoever has won. You are telling me , a scot , whose country has never voted one nation tories in history , and haven't voted the Scottish tories since 1955 , but have had them foisted on us anyway , that the system is bad , but that how it works? Why do you think everyone outside of England who listens to the English chattering classes talk of the mother of all parliaments , the beacon of western democracy and all the other tripe they come out with has us rolling on the floor howling? My point this election this is the worst result fptp has thrown up yet , and how bad does it have to be before people sit up and take notice of the democratic deficit ? zany , Steve , and all the other status quo types , deep down you can see they are really terribly upset that the uk isnt getting back in its box and going back to the old two party system of years gone by. We are in a multi party system now , with an out of date fptp giving extremely disproportionate results to what the voters want. I agree with your last paragraph. However Scotland asked to remain in the union in 2014. The direct consequence of that is that the voters there are part of a UK wide election, they get a proportion the same as the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 14, 2024 11:13:08 GMT
im fully aware of that Andrew. Im also fully aware that labour were quietly disturbed that they failed to hit the long term accepted benchmark for majority governments of 40% plus. This is the lowest percentage of support for any majority government in uk history since universal suffrage. It wasn't that labour targeted specific seats Andrew. It's more that the tories and snp vote fell past them massively , while they themselves were down on support from the previous election. Apart from reform uk surging vote share , it appeared to be the uk electorate saying a plague on all your houses from what I can see , including to the snp in scotland. I have criticised the system for over twenty years Andrew , whoever has won. You are telling me , a scot , whose country has never voted one nation tories in history , and haven't voted the Scottish tories since 1955 , but have had them foisted on us anyway , that the system is bad , but that how it works? Why do you think everyone outside of England who listens to the English chattering classes talk of the mother of all parliaments , the beacon of western democracy and all the other tripe they come out with has us rolling on the floor howling? My point this election this is the worst result fptp has thrown up yet , and how bad does it have to be before people sit up and take notice of the democratic deficit ? zany , Steve , and all the other status quo types , deep down you can see they are really terribly upset that the uk isnt getting back in its box and going back to the old two party system of years gone by. We are in a multi party system now , with an out of date fptp giving extremely disproportionate results to what the voters want. I agree with your last paragraph. However Scotland asked to remain in the union in 2014. The direct consequence of that is that the voters there are part of a UK wide election, they get a proportion the same as the rest of us. scotland asked to remain in a uk that was in the EU , as we know. The goalposts have moved since then. Scotland is supposed to be in a union , we are not supposed to be an English colony , with minor representation to enable Westminster to rule over us while making our voice ineffectual. I didnt see the EU telling England you couldnt leave , or you get one vote and that's it. Democracy is a neverendum . I also dont agree that Englands larger population should then allow them to outvote us . why should England , for example , get to sit on the UN Security Council under its UK disguise , with its tiny 55 million population , while countries like India , or Brazil , can't ? Its fun how the population discrepancy gets dismissed when it suits . The rules get made up to maintain the status quo of one country dominating the rest , when historically that one country has had a minority of the population of these islands. As we saw in the EU , England doesn't do the team game , it can only dominate , or it wants out. Hence why the uk has been breaking apart for the last century , and barely lasted as a political entity when the four nations were united under your parliament.
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 14, 2024 11:20:36 GMT
I agree with your last paragraph. However Scotland asked to remain in the union in 2014. The direct consequence of that is that the voters there are part of a UK wide election, they get a proportion the same as the rest of us. scotland asked to remain in a uk that was in the EU , as we know. The goalposts have moved since then. Scotland is supposed to be in a union , we are not supposed to be an English colony , with minor representation to enable Westminster to rule over us while making our voice ineffectual. I didnt see the EU telling England you couldnt leave , or you get one vote and that's it. Democracy is a neverendum . I also dont agree that Englands larger population should then allow them to outvote us . why should England , for example , get to sit on the UN Security Council under its UK disguise , with its tiny 55 million population , while countries like India , or Brazil , can't ? Its fun how the population discrepancy gets dismissed when it suits . The rules get made up to maintain the status quo of one country dominating the rest , when historically that one country has had a minority of the population of these islands. As we saw in the EU , England doesn't do the team game , it can only dominate , or it wants out. Hence why the uk has been breaking apart for the last century , and barely lasted as a political entity when the four nations were united under your parliament. We're wandering a little off piste here, but are you trying to argue that Scotland's representation in Westminster is not proportionate? (I don't necessarily disagree with your comments about the EU or the quest for Scottish independence, but they're a little irrelevant to the point being discussed.)
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 14, 2024 11:29:41 GMT
scotland asked to remain in a uk that was in the EU , as we know. The goalposts have moved since then. Scotland is supposed to be in a union , we are not supposed to be an English colony , with minor representation to enable Westminster to rule over us while making our voice ineffectual. I didnt see the EU telling England you couldnt leave , or you get one vote and that's it. Democracy is a neverendum . I also dont agree that Englands larger population should then allow them to outvote us . why should England , for example , get to sit on the UN Security Council under its UK disguise , with its tiny 55 million population , while countries like India , or Brazil , can't ? Its fun how the population discrepancy gets dismissed when it suits . The rules get made up to maintain the status quo of one country dominating the rest , when historically that one country has had a minority of the population of these islands. As we saw in the EU , England doesn't do the team game , it can only dominate , or it wants out. Hence why the uk has been breaking apart for the last century , and barely lasted as a political entity when the four nations were united under your parliament. We're wandering a little off piste here, but are you trying to argue that Scotland's representation in Westminster is not proportionate? (I don't necessarily disagree with your comments about the EU or the quest for Scottish independence, but they're a little irrelevant to the point being discussed.) im arguing Englands representation in Westminster has never been proportionate. Or outside of Westminster as per my previous example. when ireland for example joined the westmsinter parliament to give the uk its biggest territorial extent in these islands under Westminster control , England had 40 % of the landmass , and 50 % of the population , but had 80 % of the representation. Wether this was before universal suffrage , is irrelevant to the point. It's also inappropriate Westminster being the uk parliament in the light of devolution 25 years ago. The commons should be English only, with similar powers over England as the devolved parliaments have in the Celtic countries , yet a mishmash was constructed to maintain one countries grip over the rest. You can see why 65 nations , including the United States , and our neighbours ireland , fought their way out from under Westminster control. If your parliament ruling others is such a Wonderfull democratic experience its amazing how many countries didnt appear to like it.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 14, 2024 13:40:04 GMT
I don't agree. The Tories were unpopular and Starmer was safe, if not charismatic. The Tories were unpopular but Corbyn was not safe. My opinion is that enough people voted to make sure Corbyn didn't get in. I know I did. rubbish. I see we are back to reinventing political history to suit the latest waffling narrative regarding starmers disastrous electoral support this election. The tories were unpopular........tick. labour were unpopular......tick FPTP , not voters , elected labour ......tick. The disaster that was labours defeat in 2019 (despite Corbyn handsomely winning half a million more votes than starmer ) wasn't because Corbyn was unpopular. We saw in his time in power as labour leader , how he enthused hundreds of thousands to join labour, came within a whisker of winning the 2017 general election , and came across to many voters , including myself , as a fairly decent human being despite the muck thrown at him constantly from not just the tories , but the blairites in his own party. so what happened between 2017 and 2019? Getting Brexit done. That was what the problem was. General starmer and his blairite cronies refused to accept the referendum result from 2016 , spent years trying to use every trick in the book to either overturn Brexit or somehow give a BRINO , to the extent starmer pissed off two thirds of labours 2017 constituencies that voted Brexit the year before. Labours disastrous Brexit policy was what hamstrung Corbyn in 2019. I know it doesn't suit your narrative , but everyone outside of liberal centrist la la land know fine well the public had had enough of remain politicians shenanigans , and by 2019 , were determined to get Brexit done and dusted and hammer any party that didnt go along with what the public had voted for. You need to calm down and stop insulting people who disagree with you. Its not that type of forum. Give polite arguments backed with evidence if possible. You're claim the "General" Starmer spent years trying to use every trick in the book to either overturn Brexit or somehow give a BRINO is clearly wrong as Starmer was not in power nor even leader of the Labour party. Further contrary to your opinion if Starmer had pursued such a course he better represented public opinion than Corbyn in this.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 14, 2024 13:41:46 GMT
I dont think Corbyn was an unpopular leader as the mainstream media would like to make out , but I do agree with the gist of your post. I dont think these new labour liberal centrist realise that winning at all cost with no morals or principles , using a dodgy electoral system to do so , and pushing political debate down to the bottom of the barrel in terms of saying we know we are shit , but at least we aren't as shit as the tories is conducive to a healthy democracy and society at large. FPTP has given the uk a new prime minister who is essentially a policy free blank piece of paper with no morals or principles . No wonder so many people were completely turned off voting. Whilst I'm in favour of PR, it's difficult to argue that Labour used a dodgy system, as the system has been used historically, which has produced results. The LibDems, and to an extent Labour, targetted specific seats, which is how the system works, and both have been successful with this. Reform didn't really do this, they tried to attack the whole country, but didn't have the resources (or the personnel) to make this pay. You can criticise the system, but all parties knew how this worked before the election, some made it work for them, others failed. Not to mention it was the same system used when Corbyn was leader.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 14, 2024 13:46:55 GMT
im fully aware of that Andrew. Im also fully aware that labour were quietly disturbed that they failed to hit the long term accepted benchmark for majority governments of 40% plus. This is the lowest percentage of support for any majority government in uk history since universal suffrage. It wasn't that labour targeted specific seats Andrew. It's more that the tories and snp vote fell past them massively , while they themselves were down on support from the previous election. Apart from reform uk surging vote share , it appeared to be the uk electorate saying a plague on all your houses from what I can see , including to the snp in scotland. I have criticised the system for over twenty years Andrew , whoever has won. You are telling me , a scot , whose country has never voted one nation tories in history , and haven't voted the Scottish tories since 1955 , but have had them foisted on us anyway , that the system is bad , but that how it works? Why do you think everyone outside of England who listens to the English chattering classes talk of the mother of all parliaments , the beacon of western democracy and all the other tripe they come out with has us rolling on the floor howling? My point this election this is the worst result fptp has thrown up yet , and how bad does it have to be before people sit up and take notice of the democratic deficit ? zany , Steve , and all the other status quo types , deep down you can see they are really terribly upset that the uk isnt getting back in its box and going back to the old two party system of years gone by. We are in a multi party system now , with an out of date fptp giving extremely disproportionate results to what the voters want. I agree with your last paragraph. However Scotland asked to remain in the union in 2014. The direct consequence of that is that the voters there are part of a UK wide election, they get a proportion the same as the rest of us. Actually Zany is in favour of PR. Though I'm not sure how it would have changed this last election.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 14, 2024 13:48:11 GMT
. .zany , Steve , and all the other status quo types , deep down you can see they are really terribly upset that the uk isnt getting back in its box and going back to the old two party system of years gone by. . . Fiction ^ I've consistently argued for voting reform, I've repeatedly said I wanted a hung parliament and that I couldn't vote for either of those two parties. Please stop this misrepresenting me. Whether you're doing it deliberately or just wild arsed guessing out of ignorance of the truth doesn't matter, it's wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2024 16:06:34 GMT
Indeed. Hopefully, Starmer will prove me wrong about him and do all the right things. Everything I've read about him and his cabinet picks indicates otherwise though, unfortunately I think the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2024 16:09:48 GMT
eh? What's swing voters got to do with starmer getting half a million votes less than Corbyn , yet winning the election on a low turnout? Surely if swing voters couldnt stomach Corbyn , then it stands to reason that if starmer is popular (he's not, he's polling similar to richi sunak in terns of negative ratings) then labour should have taken more votes than Corbyn , and at least won a majority on the standard 40% margin? The. fact they couldnt suggests the opposite to what you are implying. I don't agree. The Tories were unpopular and Starmer was safe, if not charismatic. The Tories were unpopular but Corbyn was not safe. My opinion is that enough people voted to make sure Corbyn didn't get in. I know I did. I profoundly disagree. In 2019 Brexit was popular. The Tory leader promised to deliver it. Labour looked as if they were going all out to stop it. Your analysis above completely ignores the massive part Brexit played in that outcome. In spite of which Corbyn's Labour still got more votes than Starmer's
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2024 16:12:08 GMT
But he garnered even more to vote against him. That's my point even if its not yours. A leader cannot get elected in this country by just being popular with one set of people. They have to be not too bad for the other set, surely Blair proved that. My view at the time was that Corbyn had very many policies but I had no idea how they were to be implemented. Therefore they worried me because of his history. Starmer did have policies they just weren't as exciting, his policy was about small changes, working with business, pushing UK energy, stopping Rwanda. Not sure what policies you wanted him to have? It was the issue of Brexit that garnered even more against him, an issue behind which the right united, with Farage's cohorts ceasing to stand against Tory MPs.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 14, 2024 18:17:22 GMT
I don't agree. The Tories were unpopular and Starmer was safe, if not charismatic. The Tories were unpopular but Corbyn was not safe. My opinion is that enough people voted to make sure Corbyn didn't get in. I know I did. I profoundly disagree. In 2019 Brexit was popular. The Tory leader promised to deliver it. Labour looked as if they were going all out to stop it. Your analysis above completely ignores the massive part Brexit played in that outcome. In spite of which Corbyn's Labour still got more votes than Starmer's Take a look at the polls on Brexit, then tell me it popular. It might have been popular among Corbynites. I remember that election. I remember asking other forum members when Labour were going to make a decision on a 2nd referendum. One minute it was on then off then maybe.
|
|