Bercow defects to Labour - Did not see that coming

NYboro said:
It was not a clear win except by the totally unrepresentative FPTP system.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I find it bizarre that an unassailable majority that cannot be effectively opposed in Parliament and with which this government can do and in fact are doing what they want on the back of 43% of the overall vote is ok and reflects a clear win. It is only a clear win because of the flawed system, which is precisely the point. More people voted for parties other than the current government and yet this government has absolute power. There just isn't an argument there.
 
bear66 said:
Totally agree about Scotland. As my table above showed, the SNP should only have 25 seats. Do the Green voters only 'deserve' one seat when a fair and true representation would be 18?

We don't elect a government, we elect representatives. FPTP fails us.

Every vote should count so there are no 'winners' and 'losers', just a fair reflection of everyone in this country.
Click to expand...
I think the Green Party is an interesting one. It is as big a freak how under-represented they are in Parliament as it is the SNP being over-represented, or you could argue the Ulster Unionists with 11% of the NI vote and nothing. Sometimes more parties doesn't improve things.

I think many more would vote Green if they stood for the name on the tin. I think they lose appeal and trust and credibility with lots of people who do feel very strongly about Environmental issues, when their other political views are expressed, and they have to be if they are to be taken seriously as a mainstream political party.
There is always a problem with one issue parties. UKIP were about one issue and mobilised themselves around this. They had appeal to many who felt strongly about this one issue. Their other policies were unclear/unpopular/half baked, but largely irrelevant. They were never going to get any power, other than influence over another party.
The Greens extremely left wing stance is not appealing to many who would strongly agree with their environmental commitment. They limit themselves, but could be a strong influence on a Labour/ centre left party that got its **** together.

Ziggy's line is a nice sounding one "Oppositions don't win elections, Govts lose them", but is not really true. As ever it is a bit of both.
A strong aligned centre left alliance who don't pick at each other over everything can focus on defeating a corpulent, arrogant, lazy, corrupt Government that is in the process of throwing away a major opportunity.
The public are not all bright young things, but neither are they all idiots without memories.
Johnson will continue to abuse his power and he will be executed - either by his own party in self serving mode, or by the public at the next election.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Exactly. I find it bizarre that an unassailable majority that cannot be effectively opposed in Parliament and with which this government can do and in fact are doing what they want on the back of 43% of the overall vote is ok and reflects a clear win. It is only a clear win because of the flawed system, which is precisely the point. More people voted for parties other than the current government and yet this government has absolute power. There just isn't an argument there.
Click to expand...
There is, but as usual you just don't listen. For someone who finds absolutes for idiots, you illustrate everything as binary, one thing or another.
 
indeedido said:
I think the Green Party is an interesting one. It is as big a freak how under-represented they are in Parliament as it is the SNP being over-represented, or you could argue the Ulster Unionists with 11% of the NI vote and nothing. Sometimes more parties doesn't improve things.

I think many more would vote Green if they stood for the name on the tin. I think they lose appeal and trust and credibility with lots of people who do feel very strongly about Environmental issues, when their other political views are expressed, and they have to be if they are to be taken seriously as a mainstream political party.
There is always a problem with one issue parties. UKIP were about one issue and mobilised themselves around this. They had appeal to many who felt strongly about this one issue. Their other policies were unclear/unpopular/half baked, but largely irrelevant. They were never going to get any power, other than influence over another party.
The Greens extremely left wing stance is not appealing to many who would strongly agree with their environmental commitment. They limit themselves, but could be a strong influence on a Labour/ centre left party that got its **** together.

Ziggy's line is a nice sounding one "Oppositions don't win elections, Govts lose them", but is not really true. As ever it is a bit of both.
A strong aligned centre left alliance who don't pick at each other over everything can focus on defeating a corpulent, arrogant, lazy, corrupt Government that is in the process of throwing away a major opportunity.
The public are not all bright young things, but neither are they all idiots without memories.
Johnson will continue to abuse his power and he will be executed - either by his own party in self serving mode, or by the public at the next election.
Click to expand...
I think many more would vote Green if they had a hope of being elected. As is the case in every developed democratic country that doesn't have an archaic, anachronistic voting system. 20% is not uncommon and the numbers are growing throughout Europe.
 
indeedido said:
There is, but as usual you just don't listen. For someone who finds absolutes for idiots, you illustrate everything as binary, one thing or another.
Click to expand...

Again with the ad hominem stuff. Seriosuly you're better than this, or at least I thought you were. I am listening and I am responding. You said that you have to wonder why anyone would consider that this 80 seat majority is such a problem. That's the answer. Nothing binary about it. It's a problem because you can win absolute power with only 43% of the vote. That's my problem with it.

And of course I find absolutes for idiots. We all do, you included. If someone says that supporting PR means that you must support fascism then yeah I am going to call that idiotic. What would you call it?
 
Tony Blair brilliantly won power in 1997 with just 43.2% of the popular vote and had a 179 seat majority, getting 63% of the seats and a 71% turnout.
He won again in 2001 with an even lower share of the vote at 40.7%, yet had a 167 seat majority, getting 63% of the seats with just 59% turnout.
Blair's first victory was brilliant, his second an endorsement, both against pitifully divided opposition which had allowed a third party to grow.

Nobody was saying how terrible the system was then partly because Blair hadn't behaved like Johnson now and didn't have anything like Brexit and Covid to handle.
Ultimately Blair's own corruption, arrogance and mistakes were his undoing and the public didn't miss him, especially when a more palatable and functioning opposition emerged.
Either your own party bins you, or the public does.

There is not much wrong with our System that an aligned opposition and a little time doesn't correct.
A democratically elected second house would definitely help and as I say, a PR (not a complex STV) scheme might provide a more credible check to an unusual landslide Govt.
 
indeedido said:
Tony Blair brilliantly won power in 1997 with just 43.2% of the popular vote and had a 179 seat majority, getting 63% of the seats and a 71% turnout.
He won again in 2001 with an even lower share of the vote at 40.7%, yet had a 167 seat majority, getting 63% of the seats with just 59% turnout.
Blair's first victory was brilliant, his second an endorsement, both against pitifully divided opposition which had allowed a third party to grow.

Nobody was saying how terrible the system was then partly because Blair hadn't behaved like Johnson now and didn't have anything like Brexit and Covid to handle.
Ultimately Blair's own corruption, arrogance and mistakes were his undoing and the public didn't miss him, especially when a more palatable and functioning opposition emerged.
Either your own party bins you, or the public does.

There is not much wrong with our System that an aligned opposition and a little time doesn't correct.
A democratically elected second house would definitely help and as I say, a PR (not a complex STV) scheme might provide a more credible check to an unusual landslide Govt.
Click to expand...
You are wrong again - plenty of people called it as undemocratic. I really do not know why you keep bringing up Blair.
 
Adi_Dem said:
Again with the ad hominem stuff. Seriosuly you're better than this, or at least I thought you were. I am listening and I am responding. You said that you have to wonder why anyone would consider that this 80 seat majority is such a problem. That's the answer. Nothing binary about it. It's a problem because you can win absolute power with only 43% of the vote. That's my problem with it.

And of course I find absolutes for idiots. We all do, you included. If someone says that supporting PR means that you must support fascism then yeah I am going to call that idiotic. What would you call it?
Click to expand...
You do make me laugh Adi.
I have defended you so many times over the years. To imply "ad hominem", which only a lawyer would, is a joke. The truth is you are extremely strongly willed, principled and opinionated and do have a pattern of put downs when someone challenges your strong views.
I am very aware that I share some characteristics, but I do try and consider the views of others. I don't agree with what I perceive the views of many posters, but they do make me think and I will modify my views. You seem so absolute (genuinely no pun intended this time).
 
NYboro said:
You are wrong again - plenty of people called it as undemocratic. I really do not know why you keep bringing up Blair.
Click to expand...
Because he had major landslides with smaller vote share and turnout.
I could equally have focused on Thatcher landslides.

The point is what people do with the power and how they are then judged by the public and their own party. The point being it self corrects and with aligned, organised opposition, it does so quickly if the public can see abuse of power.
We are 18 months or so into times never seen before in terms of Brexit and Covid. The public is not stupid and do see abuse of power re Covid and will remember it. The Cons party will ditch Johnson when they need his scapegoat/justice.
The system is not bad. The current Government's behaviour, weak opposition and a poor second house is bad. It will be corrected.
 
indeedido said:
You do make me laugh Adi.
I have defended you so many times over the years. To imply "ad hominem", which only a lawyer would, is a joke. The truth is you are extremely strongly willed, principled and opinionated and do have a pattern of put downs when someone challenges your strong views.
I am very aware that I share some characteristics, but I do try and consider the views of others. I don't agree with what I perceive the views of many posters, but they do make me think and I will modify my views. You seem so absolute (genuinely no pun intended this time).
Click to expand...

I've never used the term ad hominem in a legal context in all my time as a lawyer. I thought it was a fairly day to day phrase. Never mind. It's not a joke though. You are playing the man rather than the ball. I have not done that with you at any stage. I am no more absolute than anyone else (including and especially you) and the only time I ever use such put downs is with trolls and idiots (who demonstrate themselves to be so such as in the 'fascism/PR' example I gave above). You are neither a troll nor an idiot and so I answered your question with a straight bat. You asked what the problem with that majority was and I gave you the reason I have a problem with it. I don't think there is a counter argument to that and I have listened and read intently to try and find one. That isn't me being absolute, that is me genuinely not seeing a valid counter argument despite trying to. I do not think that a system that can produce absolute power with 43% of the vote (and as you rightly point out even less than that historically) can ever be a fair and equitable system of democracy. You clearly have a different view, which is fine, I just can't see on the pages of text in this thread a valid argument as to why. That's not because I don't want to or haven't tried to as you suggest, it's because I genuinely don't.

indeedido said:
The system is not bad. The current Government's behaviour, weak opposition and a poor second house is bad. It will be corrected.
Click to expand...

This is the bit in particular that I am staggered by. This isn't the same as previously when governments got booted out by the electorate in the next election. I don't see that happening precisely because of the abuses of power, the stripping away of accountability and scrutiny and further gerrymandering of the elections. You say the system isn't bad and yet it is a system that has produced a government that is able, without consequence or meaningful opposition, to break international treaties, lie on a now epic scale on a daily basis, prorogue Parliament illegally, hide abuses, brush independent reports under the carpet, engage in corruption on an industrial scale, be negligent to the extent of causing hundreds of thousands of death, to attack judicial review, attack the electoral commission powers and remove any independent scrutiny, to have a media that refuses to hold it to account and an opposition so hamstrung by that media and by the system of voting, so neutered that it can't do anything - these are all symptoms of a system that is literally collapsing. It needs wholesale, root and branch reform. Believe me I have studied the constitution of this country in depth, its voting system, its system of government and all of the quirks of this archaic system and it has just about managed to work until now but it relied almost solely on the deceny and honourability of those elected to govern within it. That has gone now. I know you're not worried about it given that you think the system isn't bad but trust me it is definitely something you need to worry about.
 
Just having a parliament that could legally hold a government to account would be a great start. Lies to be called out with consequences.

Even with PR a government could run roughshod over the electorate
 
Laughing said:
Just having a parliament that could legally hold a government to account would be a great start. Lies to be called out with consequences.

Even with PR a government could run roughshod over the electorate
Click to expand...

PR with a codified constitution and independent ‘regulatory’ body with appropriate powers. Fully root and branch it. That gets my vote.
 
Adi_Dem said:
I've never used the term ad hominem in a legal context in all my time as a lawyer. I thought it was a fairly day to day phrase. Never mind. It's not a joke though. You are playing the man rather than the ball. I have not done that with you at any stage. I am no more absolute than anyone else (including and especially you) and the only time I ever use such put downs is with trolls and idiots (who demonstrate themselves to be so such as in the 'fascism/PR' example I gave above). You are neither a troll nor an idiot and so I answered your question with a straight bat. You asked what the problem with that majority was and I gave you the reason I have a problem with it. I don't think there is a counter argument to that and I have listened and read intently to try and find one. That isn't me being absolute, that is me genuinely not seeing a valid counter argument despite trying to. I do not think that a system that can produce absolute power with 43% of the vote (and as you rightly point out even less than that historically) can ever be a fair and equitable system of democracy. You clearly have a different view, which is fine, I just can't see on the pages of text in this thread a valid argument as to why. That's not because I don't want to or haven't tried to as you suggest, it's because I genuinely don't.



This is the bit in particular that I am staggered by. This isn't the same as previously when governments got booted out by the electorate in the next election. I don't see that happening precisely because of the abuses of power, the stripping away of accountability and scrutiny and further gerrymandering of the elections. You say the system isn't bad and yet it is a system that has produced a government that is able, without consequence or meaningful opposition, to break international treaties, lie on a now epic scale on a daily basis, prorogue Parliament illegally, hide abuses, brush independent reports under the carpet, engage in corruption on an industrial scale, be negligent to the extent of causing hundreds of thousands of death, to attack judicial review, attack the electoral commission powers and remove any independent scrutiny, to have a media that refuses to hold it to account and an opposition so hamstrung by that media and by the system of voting, so neutered that it can't do anything - these are all symptoms of a system that is literally collapsing. It needs wholesale, root and branch reform. Believe me I have studied the constitution of this country in depth, its voting system, its system of government and all of the quirks of this archaic system and it has just about managed to work until now but it relied almost solely on the deceny and honourability of those elected to govern within it. That has gone now. I know you're not worried about it given that you think the system isn't bad but trust me it is definitely something you need to worry about.
Click to expand...
I share many of your concerns about appalling behaviour.
I simply don’t share your view that things will not be corrected and there will not be retribution.
 
indeedido said:
I share many of your concerns about appalling behaviour.
I simply don’t share your view that things will not be corrected and there will not be retribution.
Click to expand...

And you don’t see the link between the appalling behaviour and the system of government within which it is being allowed to happen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top