Britain - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ross
  • 13,454 comments
  • 769,613 views

How will you vote in the 2024 UK General Election?

  • Conservative Party

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Green Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labour Party

    Votes: 14 48.3%
  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Other (Wales/Scotland/Northern Ireland)

    Votes: 1 3.4%
  • Other Independents

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other Parties

    Votes: 2 6.9%
  • Spoiled Ballot

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Will Not/Cannot Vote

    Votes: 8 27.6%

  • Total voters
    29
  • Poll closed .
Where does the Labour party go from here?

Reading this article, and seeing "Mid-Staffs" Andy Burnham is the front-runner for leader makes me wonder what the future holds for them. They would honestly lose any hope of playing the "NHS is safe in our hands" card, arguably their biggest draw, with him at the helm.

Now, as Labour struggles to come to terms with its devastating election defeat and nominations for the leadership open, the party is still grappling with how to reconcile its past with its future, regain economic credibility and reflect the cultural anxieties of modern Britain.

When Mr Miliband became leader in September 2010, Pat McFadden, now Europe spokesman, said the party was embarking on a “huge experiment in whether you can win from a position to the left of New Labour”. That theory has been “tested to destruction”, he says. Lord Mandelson believes “Labour handed the election to the Conservatives on a plate”. As he watched the results pouring in, with a growing sense of foreboding, “it was almost as if New Labour hadn’t existed and we had never won three elections in a row”, says the man who had replaced the red flag with the red rose. “I felt as if the clock had been turned back and all the years of change and broadening our appeal were being flushed away."
 
Here is something fun that I learned today. Your recent election results have yielded nearly 50% of misrepresentation amongst your constituents. How did I come to this conclusion? This video explains why...

 
We know. Our system is rubbish. Turnout is less than great and the Conservatives won the right to govern with less than 25% of the electorate's vote.
 
Proportional representation is really the way to go, but it does have its dangers too...

_82873519_prop_rep-01.png


For instance, when looking at the figures from the last election, UKIP would have won 83 seats instead of just one. Worth thinking about. ;)
 
Proportional representation is really the way to go, but it does have its dangers too...

_82873519_prop_rep-01.png


For instance, when looking at the figures from the last election, UKIP would have won 83 seats instead of just one. Worth thinking about. ;)

The US does not have PR, and never will. It is two-party system with "first pass the post", as you say. Our system is structured to ensure popular movements have very little influence on continuity of government unless the popular movement is very big indeed. The trick is allow the people to think they have some kind of choice or vote when they really don't.
 
The US does not have PR, and never will. It is two-party system with "first pass the post", as you say.

The ballot vote might be FPTP but you have the electoral college whereby a vote can be worth more or less depending on the state. Is the allocation of EC votes not a form of proportional representation given that it is proportional to the population in the individual states?
 
Last edited:
On several occasions the EC has awarded the presidency to a candidate who failed to win the popular election. We are not a democracy, and carefully insulate ourselves from the mercurial will of the people.
 
Keep in mind also that the electoral college is only used for presidential (and VP) elections. Senators and congressmen are elected by direct popular vote.
 
Here is something fun that I learned today. Your recent election results have yielded nearly 50% of misrepresentation amongst your constituents. How did I come to this conclusion? This video explains why...
The least of our problems. Our entire upper-house is unelected.
 
But at least our upper house can't veto things.

They can still veto provisional orders. A rare circumstance, but a circumstance none the less.

But that's not the point, the entire core about the upper house is unelected. It is diametrically opposite from democracy, whether they actively interfere or not.
 
They can still veto provisional orders. A rare circumstance, but a circumstance none the less.

But that's not the point, the entire core about the upper house is unelected. It is diametrically opposite from democracy, whether they actively interfere or not.
There is a lot of blurring in the area between direct democracy and oligarchy/monarchy. You have neither, but a blend of both.

Do the British people have the democratic rights of initiative, referendum and recall?
 
Do the British people have the democratic rights of initiative, referendum and recall?

No. Excluding devolution/independence, I don't recall us having too many referenda. We are not represented, we are ruled. We do what we are told.
 
No. Excluding devolution/independence, I don't recall us having too many referenda. We are not represented, we are ruled. We do what we are told.
Well, you are undoubtedly better off with a wise and benevolent dictator rather than mob rule.
 
No. Excluding devolution/independence, I don't recall us having too many referenda. We are not represented, we are ruled. We do what we are told.
And how is not giving us a say in anything not representation?

We are represented. Not ruling ourselves.


Besides. It has to be that way. The public have frequently called for stupid things in the past that only those in the know, know that it is a terrible decision.

If the public were consulted on everything I would give a state 50 years before it is no more.
 
Besides. It has to be that way. The public have frequently called for stupid things in the past that only those in the know, know that it is a terrible decision.
I thought you hated the idea of social classes, but here you are ready to bow down to the wisdom of the state and the ruling class. Are employees of the state and politicians created of superior flesh and bone to you and I? Are we all just unwashed plebians compared to the slick politicians on TV bought by multinational corporations?
 
And how is not giving us a say in anything not representation?

We are represented. Not ruling ourselves.

No we are not. Our so-called 'representatives' do not serve us. Unelected additions to the upper chamber is cherry picked by whomever is in power at that time. There are still hereditary peers in there and several bishoprics also get automatic seats in the house.

We bend to their will when it ought to be the other way around. Also, we still have an unelected, hereditary head of state with a bunch of jingoist relatives.

Besides. It has to be that way.

Really. Really?

The public have frequently called for stupid things in the past that only those in the know, know that it is a terrible decision.

And those in charge have never done stupid things, have they?

If the public were consulted on everything I would give a state 50 years before it is no more.

They might have their own problems but Austria and Switzerland aren't exactly lower down on the Human Development and GDP Indicies with their popular initiatives and referenda.
 
A hard left unionist with links to radical Islam, a health secretary who still hasn't answered for Mid-Staffs and a woman who was mentored by Gordon Brown.

Can only be a Labour leadership contest.
 
Well, when it is being led by this person, what do you expect?

wiki article on Harriet Harman, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Harman#Paedophile_Information_Exchange_allegations_and_response

In February 2014, Harman denied allegations that she had supported the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) when the advocacy group was affiliated with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), while she was the pressure group's Legal Officer from 1978 to 1982. The Conservative-leaning Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph also claimed that Jack Dromey MP (her partner) and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt had offered support to apologists for the sexual abuse of children while they were working for NCCL.

In a television interview, Harman said she had "nothing to apologise for," stating "I very much regret that this vile organisation, PIE, ever existed and that it ever had anything to do with NCCL, but it did not affect my work at NCCL."[62] Harman stated that while she did support the equalisation of the age of consent for gay men she had never campaigned for the age of consent to go below the age of 16 and accused the Daily Mail of trying to make her "guilty by way of association".[63] Ed Miliband backed Harman and stated that she had "huge decency and integrity".[63]

The Daily Mail disputed Harman's claim that "anybody could join the NCCL simply by paying a fee"[64] whilst the Daily Telegraph cast doubt on her assertion that the PIE had been "pushed to the margins" before Harman had joined the NCCL.[65]
 
@Dotini - There's also a campaign for members of the Conservative party to join Labour (for £3) and elect him Labour party leader. Completely undermining the Labour party at the next election.
 
Unless the Conservatives do something really stupid, Labour are doomed in the UK for at least a generation.

They have lost Scotland, and there just aren't enough disenfranchised people in England to get them in to power... particularly if they move further to the left... which is possible given the unions still have far too much influence over the whole party, from picking local party candidates to the leader.

Can't see PR happening either - more likely the Conservatives will adjust constituency boundaries to strengthen their position.

Happy days :)
 
Must be really difficult for that tax dodging swine to decide which of her other 7 palaces to live in, in the meantime.

I hope she's paying for these renovations herself. Not holding my breath on that one though.
 
Must be really difficult for that tax dodging swine to decide which of her other 7 palaces to live in, in the meantime.

I hope she's paying for these renovations herself. Not holding my breath on that one though.

Given the vast majority of her income comes from the state, what would be the point of her paying tax?

And she doesn't own the Palaces, the State does. The property (Crown Estate) produces revenue for the State, not the Monarch.
 
Given the vast majority of her income comes from the state, what would be the point of her paying tax?

And she doesn't own the Palaces, the State does. The property (Crown Estate) produces revenue for the State, not the Monarch.

I know how it works, but I like a nice anti-monarch outburst every now and then.
 
Back