|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 3, 2024 9:23:44 GMT
Corbyn will just fall short, Labour are throwing the kitchen sink at North Islington to the detriment of places such as Clacton where they have literally packed up and stopped campaigning. They are shipping PLP members, Councillors and big hitters such as Mandleson in from all parts of the country to lend support as well as a big chunk of their budget for media etc. It will be Labour by around 3,000 I reckon....... I'm still hopeful, based only on hope , not knowledge.It will be an absolute disgrace if he doesn't win and a further indictment of our system......All the Party political tactical stuff, whichever side you are on,is just designed to keep the status quo and jobs for those who like to work in politics. IMO
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 3, 2024 9:34:19 GMT
Yea we all yearn for the good old days of Thatcher and even further back before we joined the evil EEC UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 9:57:38 GMT
Yea we all yearn for the good old days of Thatcher and even further back before we joined the evil EEC UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Michael Foot was not "Loony Left" He was a democratic socialist. Disgusting comment from you.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jul 3, 2024 10:07:40 GMT
Yea we all yearn for the good old days of Thatcher and even further back before we joined the evil EEC UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Good post that is.....Just watching the news over here regularly and both the Dutch public and ( admittedly) a small number of politicians are questioning now the validity of staying in the EU. I personally dont think anything will change as NL was one of the drivers of the EU with France and Germany back in the day
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Jul 3, 2024 10:16:49 GMT
Yea we all yearn for the good old days of Thatcher and even further back before we joined the evil EEC UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Thatcher benefited from a Bonanza of Tax from North Sea Oil & Gas Revenue which she proceeded to piss away for idealogical reasons in an effort to crush Unionism in UK. A sensible Government like Norway exploited its natural resources for themselves which is why now it's got the highest per Capita GDP in the World. Thatcher was a disaster on so many levels. Now is the Winter of or discontent was not made glorious by Thatcher but fucking misery
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 3, 2024 10:18:21 GMT
UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Michael Foot was not "Loony Left" He was a democratic socialist. Disgusting comment from you. Foot was extreme left wing, find me a reference that says otherwise. Like Healey he wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeak. He wanted nuclear disarmament and nationalisation. New Labour is democratic socialism which displaced Foot. To his credit Foot was in favour of leaving the EEC. Good man, Foot
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 3, 2024 10:23:23 GMT
UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Michael Foot was not "Loony Left" He was a democratic socialist. Disgusting comment from you. "No Socialist Party with the prospect of forming a government could accept a system by which important fields of national policy were surrendered to a supranational European representative authority.” It was intuitively understood by a vast majority in the Labour Party that entanglement in the European Economic Community ran contrary to three of the party’s core principles: democracy, socialism and internationalism. unherd.com/2021/09/when-labour-believed-in-brexit/www.chu.cam.ac.uk/news/archives-centre/labours-eurosceptics/Sent from Outlook for Android
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 3, 2024 10:24:18 GMT
UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Thatcher benefited from a Bonanza of Tax from North Sea Oil & Gas Revenue which she proceeded to piss away for idealogical reasons in an effort to crush Unionism in UK. A sensible Government like Norway exploited its natural resources for themselves which is why now it's got the highest per Capita GDP in the World. Thatcher was a disaster on so many levels. Now is the Winter of or discontent was not made glorious by Thatcher but fucking misery "Winter of discontent " made by Labour en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_DiscontentI hope Starmer is strong enough to control the looney left, Callaghan wasn't and we got Thatcher, both of whom I fought against. If Starmer does fail , it could be Farage next, God forbid. As voters swing left and right.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 3, 2024 10:34:51 GMT
UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Good post that is.....Just watching the news over here regularly and both the Dutch public and ( admittedly) a small number of politicians are questioning now the validity of staying in the EU. I personally dont think anything will change as NL was one of the drivers of the EU with France and Germany back in the day During my last few years before retiring, I had a Dutch boss in IJmuiden and spent a lot of time with Dutch colleagues. There was a spectrum of views on EU membership but the general view was resignation and "Oh well we just have to accept it and look on the bright side". At least the Netherlands benefit from hosting some European centres like justice, Schipol, and Rotterdam and a strong positive balance of payments, like many of the other original member countries. I wonder where those in the UK who want to rejoin think the UK would be in this league table: www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/A a hint, when the UK was a member its net contribution (after rebate) was just about the same as Poland's net benefit. The fact that one of the richest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita has a net benefit from EU membership at other countries expense is indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 10:44:34 GMT
Michael Foot was not "Loony Left" He was a democratic socialist. Disgusting comment from you. Foot was extreme left wing, find me a reference that says otherwise. Like Healey he wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeak. He wanted nuclear disarmament and nationalisation. New Labour is democratic socialism which displaced Foot. To his credit Foot was in favour of leaving the EEC. Good man, Foot Utter nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 3, 2024 10:55:14 GMT
Foot was extreme left wing, find me a reference that says otherwise. Like Healey he wanted to tax the rich till the pips squeak. He wanted nuclear disarmament and nationalisation. New Labour is democratic socialism which displaced Foot. To his credit Foot was in favour of leaving the EEC. Good man, Foot Utter nonsense. Worzel was as bad as your hero Jezza,both up there in the loon stakes
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 3, 2024 10:58:32 GMT
UK growth rate was on average higher before joining the EEC. www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/ihyp/pn2The only time the UK has had decent growth during EEC/EU membership was during the Thatcher years. Since then growth has steadily declined. In the 1970s and 1980s I was an active member of the Liberal Party campaigning against Thatcher and the loony left of Foot and Militant. I supported joining the EEC and voted to Remain in the 1970s referendum. But I grew wise to the fact that European membership offered little benefits and huge economic damage to this country, funding the economic regeneration of Ireland, Spain, Poland, etc. The view has been expressed on this MB that the EU cares more about Stoke than British governments. Having been a member of a European committee and chaired it for 3 years I can emphatically say the European representatives had only one interest and that was their own countries, and didn't bother about EU rules and regulations. When the UK joined the EEC, the present member countries represented a third of the world's economy and it should have been worth joining that common market. But UK growth got worse after Thatcher, not better. The EU relative size is now half of what it was at a sixth of world GDP and is declining as a share as the rest of the world grows rapidly. We need to remove barriers to trade with the rest of the world. My view of EEC/EU membership has gradually changed over the decades from enthusiastic support to disappointment, to dissatisfaction, to resignation that we were stuck in it, (like most of the Europeans I know), to realisation that things could be different, to support for leaving, to actively arguing that we were right to leave. We can, with decent government, return to growth rates we enjoyed prior to membership, improved balance of trade with trade with the rest of the world, improved public services, stronger £, etc. instead of the steady decline since 1990s. Good post that is.....Just watching the news over here regularly and both the Dutch public and ( admittedly) a small number of politicians are questioning now the validity of staying in the EU. I personally dont think anything will change as NL was one of the drivers of the EU with France and Germany back in the day I hope you're right. I would suggest that with the rise of the far-right in Europe and the threat of Putin it'd be an act of supreme folly and the very last thing anyone should wish for would be the dismantling of one of the institutions that has contributed significantly to peace in Europe since WW2.
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Jul 3, 2024 11:21:33 GMT
Good post that is.....Just watching the news over here regularly and both the Dutch public and ( admittedly) a small number of politicians are questioning now the validity of staying in the EU. I personally dont think anything will change as NL was one of the drivers of the EU with France and Germany back in the day I hope you're right. I would suggest that with the rise of the far-right in Europe and the threat of Putin it'd be an act of supreme folly and the very last thing anyone should wish for would be the dismantling of one of the institutions that has contributed significantly to peace in Europe since WW2. I agree it should not be dismantled. It should be changed by getting rid of the parliament and all the other clap trap aimed at political union of Europe. It should be a free trade area like many others in the world with trade rules which individuals national governments can choose to be part of or not. The bureaucracy should be drastically slimmed down to purely administration of a free trade area not a customs union. Devolution should be a priority to hand decision making to the lowest level practicable and nearer to the people. I am not in favour of my country being merged into a United States of Europe run by an unelected bureaucratic body.
|
|
|
Post by dutchstokie on Jul 3, 2024 11:59:40 GMT
Good post that is.....Just watching the news over here regularly and both the Dutch public and ( admittedly) a small number of politicians are questioning now the validity of staying in the EU. I personally dont think anything will change as NL was one of the drivers of the EU with France and Germany back in the day During my last few years before retiring, I had a Dutch boss in IJmuiden and spent a lot of time with Dutch colleagues. There was a spectrum of views on EU membership but the general view was resignation and "Oh well we just have to accept it and look on the bright side". At least the Netherlands benefit from hosting some European centres like justice, Schipol, and Rotterdam and a strong positive balance of payments, like many of the other original member countries. I wonder where those in the UK who want to rejoin think the UK would be in this league table: www.statista.com/chart/18794/net-contributors-to-eu-budget/A a hint, when the UK was a member its net contribution (after rebate) was just about the same as Poland's net benefit. The fact that one of the richest countries in the world in terms of GDP per capita has a net benefit from EU membership at other countries expense is indefensible. Ah right..... I work in IJmuiden now.....its a massive building site at the moment as its slowly transforming into a renewables hub, for the likes of Vestas, Siemens, Orsted, Vattenfall, Shell and the rest......theres one of the biggest windparks just been given the green light right off the coast here called " Ver Beta" group.vattenfall.com/nl/newsroom/persbericht/2024/vattenfall-en-copenhagen-infrastructure-partners-winnen-tender-windpark-op-zee-ijmuiden-verIf you put this in google translate it gives you a good idea of whats happening...... multi layered wind/solar park with connections to an electrolyser plant near Rotterdam to produce hydrogen fuel...... Really fascinating stuff ! The prototype solar part of it is called "Solar Duck" and the company I work for is doing the test installation and commissioning for it.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 12:19:12 GMT
Worzel was as bad as your hero Jezza,both up there in the loon stakes Disrespectful and frankly, childish. Do better please.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 3, 2024 12:20:20 GMT
Worzel was as bad as your hero Jezza,both up there in the loon stakes Disrespectful and frankly, childish. Do better please. But true👍
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 12:23:07 GMT
Disrespectful and frankly, childish. Do better please. But true👍 Only in your head mate.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 3, 2024 12:29:23 GMT
June 1983 and December 2019 tell a different story sadly for you
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Jul 3, 2024 12:34:35 GMT
June 1983 and December 2019 tell a different story sadly for you Indeed they do...what a far better country and world it could have been.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Jul 3, 2024 12:36:47 GMT
June 1983 and December 2019 tell a different story sadly for you Indeed they do...what a far better country and world it could have been. Voters disagreed
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 3, 2024 13:08:10 GMT
Corbyn will just fall short, Labour are throwing the kitchen sink at North Islington to the detriment of places such as Clacton where they have literally packed up and stopped campaigning. They are shipping PLP members, Councillors and big hitters such as Mandleson in from all parts of the country to lend support as well as a big chunk of their budget for media etc. It will be Labour by around 3,000 I reckon....... I'm still hopeful, based only on hope , not knowledge.It will be an absolute disgrace if he doesn't win and a further indictment of our system......All the Party political tactical stuff, whichever side you are on,is just designed to keep the status quo and jobs for those who like to work in politics. IMO Totally agree And it would be even worse of a stitch up under PR Where they draw the lists up and you can’t vote for or against the individual
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 3, 2024 13:10:14 GMT
I'm still hopeful, based only on hope , not knowledge.It will be an absolute disgrace if he doesn't win and a further indictment of our system......All the Party political tactical stuff, whichever side you are on,is just designed to keep the status quo and jobs for those who like to work in politics. IMO Totally agree And it would be even worse of a stitch up under PR Where they draw the lists up and you can’t vote for or against the individual Depends upon which version of PR was chosen. That is nearer the EU " parliament " system
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 3, 2024 13:17:10 GMT
Totally agree And it would be even worse of a stitch up under PR Where they draw the lists up and you can’t vote for or against the individual Depends upon which version of PR was chosen. That is nearer the EU " parliament " system So which type do you think they’ll choose one which will dilute their power and still allow individuals to be held to account Or the European Parliament type of jobs for the compliant with no individual scrutiny
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Jul 3, 2024 13:24:39 GMT
Depends upon which version of PR was chosen. That is nearer the EU " parliament " system So which type do you think they’ll choose one which will dilute their power and still allow individuals to be held to account Or the European Parliament type of jobs for the compliant with no individual scrutiny I don't think it will happen at all Waga.Judt a hope for the future. Perhaps it will depend upon how successful Starmer's government is perceived to be. The only " opposition " is likely to come from outside Parliament, depending upon what Labour have to deal with. You never know what's around the corner www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 3, 2024 13:31:11 GMT
I'm still hopeful, based only on hope , not knowledge.It will be an absolute disgrace if he doesn't win and a further indictment of our system......All the Party political tactical stuff, whichever side you are on,is just designed to keep the status quo and jobs for those who like to work in politics. IMO Totally agree And it would be even worse of a stitch up under PR Where they draw the lists up and you can’t vote for or against the individual Actually, it probably wouldn't, because Corbyn would most likely be the head of a separate party which, provided it passed the threshold of votes required for representation, would have MPs in the HoC, including himself and others. It's our current system which prevents more genuine and democratic representation.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 3, 2024 13:35:39 GMT
So which type do you think they’ll choose one which will dilute their power and still allow individuals to be held to account Or the European Parliament type of jobs for the compliant with no individual scrutiny I don't think it will happen at all Waga.Judt a hope for the future. Perhaps it will depend upon how successful Starmer's government is perceived to be. The only " opposition " is likely to come from outside Parliament, depending upon what Labour have to deal with. You never know what's around the corner www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/I’m pretty sure it will never happen Fifteen years or so of Tory government followed by ten years or so of Labour government there’s no incentive for either to stop the perpetual roundabout Keep the status quo and wait your turn at the trough of public money
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Jul 3, 2024 13:36:39 GMT
Totally agree And it would be even worse of a stitch up under PR Where they draw the lists up and you can’t vote for or against the individual Actually, it probably wouldn't, because Corbyn would most likely be the head of a separate party which, provided it passed the threshold of votes required for representation, would have MPs in the HoC, including himself and others. It's our current system which prevents more genuine and democratic representation. Who sets the threshold
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Jul 3, 2024 13:38:42 GMT
Totally agree And it would be even worse of a stitch up under PR Where they draw the lists up and you can’t vote for or against the individual Actually, it probably wouldn't, because Corbyn would most likely be the head of a separate party which, provided it passed the threshold of votes required for representation, would have MPs in the HoC, including himself and others. It's our current system which prevents more genuine and democratic representation. Do some reading on proportional representation RWB. It may be marginally better than the farce which is FPTP but it is not in the best interests of any member of the public to have closed lists over open lists. (Open list PR and STV I support. But closed list is 2 steps forward 1 step back.)
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 3, 2024 13:46:02 GMT
Actually, it probably wouldn't, because Corbyn would most likely be the head of a separate party which, provided it passed the threshold of votes required for representation, would have MPs in the HoC, including himself and others. It's our current system which prevents more genuine and democratic representation. Do some reading on proportional representation RWB. It may be marginally better than the farce which is FPTP but it is not in the best interests of any member of the public to have closed lists over open lists. (Open list PR and STV I support. But closed list is 2 steps forward 1 step back.) The point I was making to Waga, as I'm sure you understood, is that, as head of his own "Left" Party (or whatever it might be called), Corbyn would be able to select whoever he felt as a potential MP, including himself. Waga's assumption that he would stay in the Labour party and be prevented from inclusion in any list of candidates is inherently unlikely under a PR system which allows for greater representation across the political spectrum. He would simply form his own party.
|
|
|
Post by Rednwhitenblue on Jul 3, 2024 13:52:01 GMT
Actually, it probably wouldn't, because Corbyn would most likely be the head of a separate party which, provided it passed the threshold of votes required for representation, would have MPs in the HoC, including himself and others. It's our current system which prevents more genuine and democratic representation. Who sets the threshold Parliament as a whole would do so, same as any law. Usually, most PR systems operate at about 5%. You have to have a cut off somewhere or you'll have every last party represented regardless of how low their vote share was! 5% seems sensible to me. That would mean better representation (more accurate to the vote share) for the likes of UKIP, Reform, any new Left party, Greens etc etc. Just watch how many votes Reform get and how few MPs. I can't stand the thick racist arseholes, obviously, but that doesn't alter the fact that if they get 4m votes and one MP then the UK's electoral system is inherently unfair. And undemocratic. And contributes directly to an understandable feeling of disenchantment and disenfranchisement amongst the electorate.
|
|