• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Jeremy Corbyn might actually win?

That only applies if there were no spread of opinion within political parties. The very existence of Jeremy Corbyn (Lab) MP demonstrates the error of this assumption......as does, say, Ken Clarke, Bill Cash and David Davis being members of the Conservative party.

No, it doesn't require that assumption. Each party puts forward a platform regardless of whoever happens to be lurking on the backbenches which is why leadership elections matter.
 
And we sit here and decied 'oh, no big deal, they're politicians' and we end up with utterly lousy career politicians driven by lust for power and not a desire to run the country for the good of the population.

Nothing's going to fix that, but why toss out proportional voting?

You still haven't told me how 13% of the vote being thrown away is democratic.

There is no reason why the NHS can't be as efficient as private companies.

Are you mad?

We have tested the hypothesis that private companies are so much better at providing essential services that we should give public service away.

For god's sake, learn some facts!

Education and prisons are at least as important as health, and we now know with certainty that both prisons and schools are much better run by private organisations than governments.

Sheesh, how could you not want these people in charge of health?
 
Nothing's going to fix that, but why toss out proportional voting?

You still haven't told me how 13% of the vote being thrown away is democratic.

In a straight majority parliment aren't somewhere just south of half the votes thrown away? Nearly all the votes are thrown away for the election of MPs.

I think I may be missing your point, sorry.
 
Because of course, those on the right of the Labour party are a million miles away from those on the left of the Conservative party, obviously.
And vice versa? Are the only people to obtain political representation to be a combo of the Right of Labour and the Left of the Tories? If so, why have parties at all? That is indeed the question?
 
Last edited:
In a straight majority parliment aren't somewhere just south of half the votes thrown away? Nearly all the votes are thrown away for the election of MPs.

I think I may be missing your point, sorry.
Clearly you are, so I'll try a different angle.

UKIP got exactly the same portion of the vote as Lib Dem plus SNP. SNP and LD have a total of 64 seats, UKIP 1.

Is that reasonable?

The Tories, with less than three times UKIP's vote get 331 times more MPs than UKIP.

I needn't even note that SNP received just over a third of UKIP's vote.

FPTP is not democratic.

Being in opposition is not throwing votes away.
 
And vice versa? Are the only people to obtain political representation to be a combo of the Right of Labour and the Left of the Tories? If so, why have parties at all? That is indeed the question?

I sometimes wonder if that's what the centrists on both sides would like - a perfect world of no opposition and a centrist government.

Until the gov't realised there was no opposition.
 
UKIP got exactly the same portion of the vote as Lib Dem plus SNP. SNP and LD have a total of 64 seats, UKIP 1.

Is that reasonable?

The Tories, with less than three times UKIP's vote get 331 times more MPs than UKIP.

I needn't even note that SNP received just over a third of UKIP's vote.
What you do need to note is that SNP were standing in an area inhabited only by one tenth of the UK's voters. In that area they took all but one seat from Labour, and all but one from Liberals and Conservatives too. They did this on swings the like of which have never been seen, at least since the days of universal manhood suffrage.

In that area the SNP received 49.97% of votes cast, and UKIP 1.62%.
 
Last edited:
Craig B;10831825. [b said:
In that area[/b] the SNP received 49.97% of votes cast, and UKIP 1.62%.

what does that have to do with it? It was a national, not a local, election.
 
What you do need to note is that SNP were standing in an area inhabited only by one tenth of the UK's voters.

Yes I do realise that and it's also highly relevant.

Why are Scottish votes worth more than Cornish votes?

Great for Scotland, maybe, but I'd also say they had their chance for self-determination and blew it. Why should they now have such a one-sided representation?

Or do all Scots agree 100% with the SNP?
 
what does that have to do with it? It was a national, not a local, election.

The UK general elections are elections for the various constituencies that send representatives to Parliament. These days people assume that parties are the be-all and end-all of voting but traditionally it was not that way - it was about voting for your member of parliament.
 
Yes I do realise that and it's also highly relevant.

Why are Scottish votes worth more than Cornish votes?

Great for Scotland, maybe, but I'd also say they had their chance for self-determination and blew it. Why should they now have such a one-sided representation?

Or do all Scots agree 100% with the SNP?
Nobody is suggesting that because the SNP took Scotland, it should rule England. But what you are suggesting is the kind of thing that makes independence so evidently necessary. What do you mean, one sided representation?

Scottish votes are worth more than other votes in Scotland and Cornish votes in Cornwall. That's not one sided. It's how representative democracy works.
 
Nobody is suggesting that because the SNP took Scotland, it should rule England. But what you are suggesting is the kind of thing that makes independence so evidently necessary. What do you mean, one sided representation?

Scottish votes are worth more than other votes in Scotland and Cornish votes in Cornwall. That's not one sided. It's how representative democracy works.

So, English votes for English laws then?
 
So, English votes for English laws then?
Yes, very much so. We need an agreement to that effect. And the obvious best solution - or so it seems to me - would be an English Parliament. For two hundred and ninety years Scottish laws were made by the majority in the numerically English-dominated UK parliament and when we complained nobody gave a toss. I resented that, and was much in favour of the establishment of a Scottish Parliament.

I equally believe that an English Parliament would be a positive development. In the meantime we should strive to get a fair deal on what the principle of EVEL means, and how it is to be defined and applied.

The problem with the UK is that it has never been able to evolve a federal structure or anything resembling one, up to the most recent times. The constitutional principle that has stood in the way of this was very clearly expounded by Alfred Dicey in his authoritative treatise on the Constitution.

SOVEREIGNTY OF PARLIAMENT7
The sovereignty of Parliament is, from a legal point of view, the dominant characteristic of our political institutions. And my readers will remember that Parliament consists of the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons acting together. The principle, therefore, of parliamentary sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that "Parliament" has "the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament," and further that this right or power of Parliament extends to every part of the King's dominions. These doctrines appear in the first edition of this work, published in 1885; they have been repeated in each successive edition published up to the present day. Their truth has never been denied.​

Now, the application of "the Law of England" invoked by Dicey, ought not to extend beyond the territory of England. It is not a fitting mechanism by which a union of several countries is to be governed. But undoing the practice based on the imperial assumptions taken for granted for several centuries, is not an easy task. It caused bloodshed in Ireland in Dicey's last years - he died in 1922, having execrated Home Rule throughout his career - and it is causing strain in the governance of the UK at the present time.

But you may agree with me that the task should be undertaken, and that if it requires the establishment of an English Parliament, that solution should not be ruled out. I want nothing more for the Scottish people than I am willing to grant to other peoples who desire it too.
 
Going back to Jeremy Corbyn as opposed to the nature of the voting system in the UK.

Over the years he has done and said a number of things which he will now either have to roll back or spend a lot of time and energy defending including:

  • His recent guest appearance on Russia Today - appearing on Putin's propaganda station IMO isn't very statesmanlike for a UK politician
  • His unflattering comparison of the US and ISIS
  • Sharing a platform with Dr Azzam Tamimi

Now none of this may make him any less of good person but it means that he will have to spend time and energy justifying this instead of holding the government to account.

It's this kind of baggage which will IMO make it difficult for him to be an effective leader of the opposition and he lacks the skills and will to gloss over this kind of thing.
 
Several posts have been split to a new thread (and one post addressing both Jeremy Corbyn's election and the NHS issue has been copied) : Privatisation of the NHS. As usual, if you see a post which should have been moved but wasn't, or was moved but should not have been, please let the mod team know.
Posted By: Agatha
 
Direct democracy, internet style.

Let's not forget that that was how Athenian democracy worked as well. They didn't vote for people who they then assumed to somehow embody a representation of themselves in the political arena, they just voted for the policies. Any officials that were necessary were chosen randomly. Those who did have to make executive decisions, rather than being more like clerks, were afterwards subjected to an examination of their actions.

Could learn a lot from those Athenians.
 
Clearly you are, so I'll try a different angle.

UKIP got exactly the same portion of the vote as Lib Dem plus SNP. SNP and LD have a total of 64 seats, UKIP 1.

Is that reasonable?

The Tories, with less than three times UKIP's vote get 331 times more MPs than UKIP.

I needn't even note that SNP received just over a third of UKIP's vote.

FPTP is not democratic.

Being in opposition is not throwing votes away.


Totally up to speed, thank you.

The balance is out, yes.
 
Let's not forget that that was how Athenian democracy worked as well. They didn't vote for people who they then assumed to somehow embody a representation of themselves in the political arena, they just voted for the policies. Any officials that were necessary were chosen randomly. Those who did have to make executive decisions, rather than being more like clerks, were afterwards subjected to an examination of their actions.

Could learn a lot from those Athenians.
I don't have the time to get up to speed on all the things I'd be offered the chance to vote on. Athenian democracy sounds like a massive ball ache. I'd rather get somebody who broadly represents where I'm coming from, but does have the time, to stand in for me.
 
Let's not forget that that was how Athenian democracy worked as well. They didn't vote for people who they then assumed to somehow embody a representation of themselves in the political arena, they just voted for the policies. Any officials that were necessary were chosen randomly. Those who did have to make executive decisions, rather than being more like clerks, were afterwards subjected to an examination of their actions.

Could learn a lot from those Athenians.
You could if you lived in a society where only about ten percent of male residents were enfranchised citizens.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom