If the Labour Party didn't exist, would anyone today invent it?

Spidernick

westernpromise wrote: »

The centrist party nobody bothers to join that is already doing what most people want is the Conservative Party.

Perhaps because the idea of the Tories being in any way 'centrist' would be stretching the boundaries of credibility for most people? This government is more right wing than even Thatcher's from where I am sitting. I'm not sure how depriving many of the most vulnerable in our society of their benefits and the slow creep of privatisation of the NHS, for example, can be described as 'centrist'. Try selling that argument to the vastly increased numbers now forced to use food banks and see what reaction you get!

westernpromise

Spidernick wrote: »

Perhaps because the idea of the Tories being in any way 'centrist' would be stretching the boundaries of credibility for most people? This government is more right wing than even Thatcher's from where I am sitting. I'm not sure how depriving many of the most vulnerable in our society of their benefits and the slow creep of privatisation of the NHS, for example, can be described as 'centrist'. Try selling that argument to the vastly increased numbers now forced to use food banks and see what reaction you get!

If you're on Pluto then yes Earth and Mars look close together but they're actually at least 50 million miles apart.

Similarly, if you're miles off the reservation to the left the Tories look right wing but then so does everyone else including candidates for the leadership of your own party.

Likewise UKIP talked about "LibLabCon" as though they were all indistinguishably left wing. And so they were if you consider that they all agreed that opposing death camps, forced repatriation, fascism and blaming gays for floods made them identical. Most people don't think that, however.

May's party is on 40%+ because most people perceive it as centre-right. Most people - by about 7 to 1 - think that benefits are too high for example. That makes it a centrist position. Most people consider what you describe as "the most vulnerable in society" to be quite often professional leeches.

When you think everyone else is a loony extremist, it's time to take a long look at yourself in the mirror.

zagubov

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

None of the major political parties are fit for purpose, the electoral system is archaic, the vast majority of politicians don't represent the masses and the quality of some of the people attracted to politics is abysmal, hence the endless scandals and snouts in troughs. Until something is done to radically overhaul British politics it will continue ad infinitum

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job. Douglas Adams

The desire to be a politician should bar you for life from ever becoming one. Billy Connolly

I agree with your last couple of sentences as I believe government and parliament need to be watched like a hawk, but I'm baffled about what you think should replace parties.

Do you prefer something like a free parliament?

Or an alternative UK, whatever that may turn out to be?

antrobus

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

I don't suggest anything should
be done....

So you are telling us that;

"that both major parties members are by enlarge extremists and neither party is really fit for purpose (governing the masses). Our pure political system is one of the best in the world (but could be improved), but is spoiled by political parties and power hungry individuals. "

but that you don't want to do anything about it?

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

...The only reason I even started to post in this thread was the OP was highlighting negative aspects of the Labour Party whilst completely ignoring the negative aspects of the Conservatives....

But this is a thread about the Labour Party. What have the negative aspects of the Conservatives, UKIP, Lib Dems, Greens, Monster Loony, SPGB, got to do with it?

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

To imply Blair is a war Criminal whilst forgetting Thatchers actions in the Falklands war
To accuse Labour of harbouring !!!!!philes whilst Heath is currently being investigated
To say labour has a history of corrupt immoral politicians whilst ignoring Archer, Hamilton etc. etc.

All I have ever said is throw the mud at both sides and not pick just one party to highlight their faults.

For somebody who claims neither party is "really fit for purpose" you see awfully keen to defend the Labour Party, and even going so far as to defend Labour against accusations that have not even been raised in this thread.

Your arguments make no sense.

MyOnlyPost

zagubov wrote: »

I agree with your last couple of sentences as I believe government and parliament need to be watched like a hawk, but I'm baffled about what you think should replace parties.

Do you prefer something like a free parliament?

Or an alternative UK, whatever that may turn out to be?

I am not revolutionary and I don't expect the system to change. I am simply making an observation that how our system should work is perverted by self serving political parties and even self serving individuals at the top of the parties who can radically change the parties direction for their own agenda. Both the major parties have far too much representation on the fringes in compariosn to the population as a whole.

I also pointed out that on occasion the current electoral system gives these parties massive power without a real mandate

1983 Thatcher won 42.44% of the popular vote which equated to 61% of the seats, a majority of 144. Considering that other than the DUP and UUP all other parties standing were centrist or left of center then the Right did not win the popular vote and yet we had a hard right wing governemnt with the biggest majority since the war to that point.

1997 Blair slightly beat Thatchers popular vote with 43.21% and this gave him a majority of 177 then 2001 saw a reduction to 40.7% of the vote (considerably less than Thatchers) but still a majority of 165.

With majority of this size a government can do almost anything it wants even though it doesn't have support of the majority of voters, this is the truest perversion in our political system. As history has shown us narrow majoritys temper the extremes of the parties and keep politics in the centre which is where the majority of the electorate are.

I believe we should have national parliaments elected by proportional representation for the 4 nations of Great Britain giving each nation freedom to self govern. We could then elect a Prime Minister (or President if you are anti-monarchy, I'm in the middle on that debate) who appoints their own cabinet with oversight from national parliaments to deal with international interests on behalf of the union.

My beliefs however are like most other alternative views irrelevant, as the status quo will prevail

ukcarper

westernpromise wrote: »

If you're on Pluto then yes Earth and Mars look close together but they're actually at least 50 million miles apart.

Similarly, if you're miles off the reservation to the left the Tories look right wing but then so does everyone else including candidates for the leadership of your own party.

Likewise UKIP talked about "LibLabCon" as though they were all indistinguishably left wing. And so they were if you consider that they all agreed that opposing death camps, forced repatriation, fascism and blaming gays for floods made them identical. Most people don't think that, however.

May's party is on 40%+ because most people perceive it as centre-right. Most people - by about 7 to 1 - think that benefits are too high for example. That makes it a centrist position. Most people consider what you describe as "the most vulnerable in society" to be quite often professional leeches.

When you think everyone else is a loony extremist, it's time to take a long look at yourself in the mirror.

It's not so stark as you make out, labour, liberals and greens are at 39% in polls while Tories are at 42%, UKIP are at 12% and who knows what their supporters think.

westernpromise

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

1983 Thatcher won 42.44% of the popular vote which equated to 61% of the seats, a majority of 144.

So 72% votd against Labour and 75% voted against the Alliance in that election. Pretty emphatic I'd say.

With majority of this size a government can do almost anything it wants even though it doesn't have support of the majority of voters, this is the truest perversion in our political system.

Whereas in the coalition Lib Dem policies got put into effect even though they didn't have the support of 85% of the voters.

I believe we should have national parliaments elected by proportional representation for the 4 nations of Great Britain giving each nation freedom to self govern.

You believe that because your side is losing under the current system. You were just fine in 2005 with the result where Blair got a 66-seat majority off 36% of the vote but as soon as the Tories get to form a coalition government on the same share you're all high minded and sanctimonious about how unfair it is.

Personally I don't want a Parliament in which the likes if UKIP or the SNP hold the balance of power for ever. If a fringe loony party can't come up with even one credible figure who can take (rather than defect with) one single seat they deserve none. A fringe loony regional party likewise shouldn't even be at Westminster.

MyOnlyPost

westernpromise wrote: »

So 72% votd against Labour and 75% voted against the Alliance in that election. Pretty emphatic I'd say.

I think you will find there is far more relevance in the fact that 57.5% of the people voted against a party that got a 61/39 split of the seats in it's favour

westernpromise wrote: »

You believe that because your side is losing under the current system.

I don't have a side, hence my comments are bipartisan and not aimed at the party I dislike

westernpromise wrote: »

You were just fine in 2005 with the result where Blair got a 66-seat majority off 36% of the vote but as soon as the Tories get to form a coalition government on the same share you're all high minded and sanctimonious about how unfair it is.

Would you like to trawl through my posts to find the evidence where I am just fine with that result? I have already stated I am a swing voter, I have already stated I oppose the current electoral system (and for the record have opposed it since age 16) and already stated my feelings that Blair wasn't true to the Labour party principles. You have no evidence of how I voted in 2005 or how I felt about that result

westernpromise wrote: »

A fringe loony regional party likewise shouldn't even be at Westminster.

I already stated my preference for national parliaments so the regional parties would be confined to their own regions.

westernpromise wrote: »

If a fringe loony party can't come up with even one credible figure who can take (rather than defect with) one single seat they deserve none.

This is a pathetic argument in favour of a bias system.

A party which has 12.5% support across the nation gets 1 seat because it can't gain 40%+ support in another constituency. Yet a national party which posts just 7.9% of the vote nationwide gets 8 MP's (Which is also too low by proportion of votes received) because they have a strong base in some constituencies. Yes of course the current system is fair :eek:

westernpromise

It is generally accepted that no system is fair.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581-400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair/

Changing every 10 minutes to ensure you always get the result you like is not an improvement.

Thrugelmir

Spidernick wrote: »

I'm not sure how depriving many of the most vulnerable in our society of their benefits and the slow creep of privatisation of the NHS, for example, can be described as 'centrist'.

Any suggestions would be welcome as to solve the issue that faces us all. Browns welfare state incentivised people not to work and was unaffordable. The one certainty is that it has little to do with politics and more the electorate as a whole are prepared to fund and accept as a health service. Did you know that the non attendance rate at our local hospital for appointments is 20%. That's a huge amount of wasted resource doing nothing when others are on waiting lists.