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

westernpromise

Spidernick wrote: »

Under FPTP people are often forced to compromise and vote tactically (which is where the LibDems do very well in places), but there is little, if any, need to vote tactically under most alternative voting systems.

And hence you don't actually know what difference there would be under other systems. I've voted Labour and AIFE intending to damage them both as much as possible. No way should it be inferred that I'd vote the same way if votes were counted differently.

38% under FPTP could turn into 55% under PR. UKIP's 15% could turn into nothing if there was a chance of their getting an actual MP under the counting system used. Worse, you might see 48% for one party, 42 for another, and 10% to the SNP. The result is that the SNP's agenda gets implemented against the wishes of the other 90% and quite easily against the wishes of 48% if the 10 and 42 joined up in a coalition.

The 52:48 result of the Brexit referendum and the determination of the losing side to reverse it even though Leave won give very clear warning that some among the losers of any system will insist it's unfair.

Any system is capable of producing unfair results.

UKIP want Electoral Reform and are not Left-wing, so your assertion that this is just something wanted by the Left is incorrect:

I don't limit it only to the left, it's just that the left has most form in this area. The LibDems have been arguing for years that an unfair system that favours them should replace an unfair one that doesn't.

westernpromise

antrobus wrote: »

No. Under STV you can potentially rank all candidates. Although I seem to recall that the Australians require you to do so. Personally, I'd opt for letting the voter decide.

In any case, it's the other way around,surely? It's the smithereen party that suffers if some of its candidates are deemed 'unacceptable' by (at least some) of the voters, and either not given a preference or dumped right to the bottom of the list.

So we agree in principle that either a large or a small number of similar candidates can distort results, yes?

And this is a good idea why?

nwc389

Conrad wrote: »

I think a key shift is taking place whereby hugely more people are now aspirational and though they may be poor today, they value an enterprise friendly landscape whereby they can better themselves.


Look at how many now have little side-lines such as an EBAY trading account.


Look at the shift in this country towards more high end vehicles and SUV's recently reported.


LABOUR - what does it stand for in the public mind? Welfare, hand-outs, Govt and not you the individual being the prime actor in your own life, trendy minority campaigns, the compensation culture (chasing squaddies / sueing the NHS etc), ooman rights cheats charters, defending traveller communities etc etc


They never seem to be throwing energy into the quiet hard working majority. You don't see ooman rights lawyers like Shami Chakrabarty seeking out the old lady on the council estate to champion. No, she gravitates to high profile trendy cases such as Guantanamo inmates. Why would this be, why is she never on YOUR side?


Labour is a vessel for those posh intellectuals wishing to grandstand as some sort of agitator for the glorious revolution.
Most citizens have no time for these drippy luvvies

My thoughts exactly and you have put this very well .

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

So we agree in principle that either a large or a small number of similar candidates can distort results, yes? ...

No.

westernpromise wrote: »

...And this is a good idea why?

I don't think you understand how STV operates.

Moby

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.

Simplistic analysis. May is riding the wave of seeming 'head girl' competence at present. That can change as time passes and Brexit kicks in. Labour is extremely unpopular because they have a poor leader and are split between brexit and remain. Look at the actual policies of each party and in no way can you say Labour is off on the loony left. IMO that is your warped world view rather than an accurate analysis! In fact May has been poaching Milibands policies from the 2015 general election! Labour's problem is more one of credibility rather than loony policies. Labour is extremely low on trust and the tories exploited this at the last election showing Miliband in Sturgeon's pocket!

May has had to row back on PIP.....if most voters agreed with your analysis re. welfare reform....why did she have to do that? Most commentators agree that the Govmt has now gone as far as they can on welfare reform. May will now have to move on to develop policies to show how she now represents the JAM's and marginalised. To date she hasn't done so! That will be her test in the coming years and it will be hard because everything will be coloured by the brexit negotiations. Labour has to do the hard yards to re-establish credibility over time......bit like the tories from 1997....they went through Hague, Duncan Smith, Howard and then to Cameron....even then they never got a proper majority did they!

Labour's huge error was to believe opening up the leadership ballot to the membership would encourage participation and greater democracy.....what it actually did was open up Labour to entryism by motivated extremists....they compounded the error by putting Corbyn on the ballot, (in the interests of debate), failing to consider he would be elected by the entryist surge. IMO the PLP should choose the leader; .........that is less democratic but would allow competence to do the job be an overriding factor rather than emotional utopia dreaming. The McDonnell, Corbyn wing of the PLP is actually very small.....that is why they want to reduce the percentage to nominate a left wing candidate.This demonstrates that the PLP as a whole are not loony extremists. My own view is Corbyn will become less popular as time passes but he has to be seen to fail. Criticising him internally will be jumped on by his acolytes as proof that 'internal division' is the cause of Labour's unpopularity. That is why most of the PLP is remaining silent.
What is also forgotten is that even though a majority of the Labour constituencies in the North and Midlands voted Brexit....most of the Labour voters in those constituencies voted remain. Corbyn forcing a three line whip on Article 50, (whatever the cost) is therefore setting himself against the Labour majority. Corbyn and McDonnell were always secret Brexiteers IMO. They are using the 'we have to accept the democratic vote' argument as cover for what they really believe anyway!

Moby

nwc389 wrote: »

My thoughts exactly and you have put this very well .

Not really.....people don't change....they don't suddenly develop a new entrepreneurial gene! :rotfl:Those who hate Labour anyway use Chakrabarty as an example to smear them. I'm Labour and I hate Chakrabarty and her 'cosmopolitan elitism'. Labour is a broad church...always has been.....the problem is the Labour loons are in control of the party at present but don't think that sums up Labour as a whole. Such characters as Chakrabarti and Abbot are simply seized on eagerly as totems by people who have their own agenda!;)

mrginge

Moby wrote: »

Not really.....people don't change....they don't suddenly develop a new entrepreneurial gene! :rotfl:Those who hate Labour anyway use Chakrabarty as an example to smear them. I'm Labour and I hate Chakrabarty and her 'cosmopolitan elitism'. Labour is a broad church...always has been.....the problem is the Labour loons are in control of the party at present but don't think that sums up Labour as a whole. Such characters as Chakrabarti and Abbot are simply seized on eagerly as totems by people who have their own agenda!;)

All this 'broad church' garbage...

It's just a weak argument to try display some sort of superiority. Truth is Moby that the tories are just as much a broad church as labour are.

The tories will always represent a spread from centre-right to right, while labour always represent a spread from centre-left to left.

Complaining about people highlighting the positions of Abbott and chakrabarti is all very well, but maybe just remember that the next time you're slagging off Fox, Davies, IDS ...etc

MyOnlyPost

antrobus wrote: »

P.S. People are not going around 'implying' that Blair is a war criminal; they are openly accusing him of being a war criminal. They want him to stand trial.

Yes people are saying that however the OP implied it as he didn't use that phase at all

westernpromise wrote: »

But I really struggle to think of anything respectable that we need a Labour Party for. You can have centre left parties, and most countries do, but they don't generally consort with the IRA, or lie to start to wars

westernpromise

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

Yes people are saying that however the OP implied it as he didn't use that phase at all

It's not exactly a controversial view - it has been the settled view of the public for years that Blair lied to start the war in Iraq:
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/03/14/majority-think-iraq-war-was-wrong/

A decade after the commencement of the conflict half (50%) believe Tony Blair deliberately set out to mislead the British public in the run up to the war about the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. This compares to under a third (31%) who say he genuinely believed Saddam Hussein possessed a stockpile of WMD.

These findings echo public opinion in October 2004, eighteen months after Britain’s intervention in Iraq, when 48% thought Mr Blair had lied about the weapons capabilities of the Iraqi regime, while 30% disagreed.

48%, 50%; 31%, 30%; same numbers within margin of error.

The common view, stable for 10 years now, is that Blair lied to start a war.

MyOnlyPost

westernpromise wrote: »

The common view, stable for 10 years now, is that Blair lied to start a war.

I know we have argued on this thread, but on this occasion I am not arguing with you.

I was simply justifying my earlier statement when I said you had implied Blair was a war criminal (as opposed to come right out and said it, which you didn't) and someone else picked me up on that.

For what it's worth I for one regret ever voting for Blair after the Chilcot enquiry.