A Political Thread pt. 2

[Reiser99]

Apparently the event was only confirmed the night before, so definitely not planned completely. Maybe the killer was planning something and this was just a convenient opportunity or maybe it was completely spur of the moment by someone who happened to have a home made gun.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Just saw the video on BBC of Abe speaking and then you hear a Boom from the gun, but thankfully the camera cuts away.

But whether it was an inside job? And how the killer got so close, happen to have his handmade gun at that time etc, knew beforehand Abe would be there will come out IDC.

RIP Abe.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Shinzo Abe death: Shock killing that could change Japan forever

The killing of the former PM has raised questions in a country where people don't think about violent crime.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Which Tyler]

Luckily, there's no angst in NI about their place in the UK...

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Luckily, there's no angst in NI about their place in the UK...

This poor woman has had a mare in the replies trying to be civil too! It honestly baffles me that Unionists are so keen to cling on to a union that has never paid any attention to their territory.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Starmer and Rayner cleared.

 

[ncurd]

Starmer and Rayner cleared.

Suprsing absolutely no one who read the rules at the time.

 

[Amiga500]

Corbyn got eviscerated for being pally (whatever his intentions) with many know leaders of terrorist groups including ones which were actively bombing the UK when he wasn't in a position to make any difference. He had a habit of doing it, I wouldn't describe that as 'moderate'.

Obviously you'd know what that is yeah?

 

[ncurd]

Obviously you'd know what that is yeah?

Okay you tell me when difference it could of possibly made when your a minor backbench MP in the opposition because nobody has been able to tell me in years.

I'm not saying his intentions were bad or untoward just he wielded so little power he was hardly going to convince Thatcher or Major of anything.

 

[Reiser99]

Starmer and Rayner cleared.

Would love to know what the significant new evidence was.

 

[ncurd]

Would love to know what the significant new evidence was.

I can only think it was the timetable which suggested they were shutting up shop before the meal started.

 

[Eleutherarch]

On PR the issue is that it doesn't really work with our constituency system. We don't elect a Prime Minister we elect MPs and the party with the most MPs forms a government and the leader of the party becomes Prime Minister. It's a complicated system.

Take an example of where there are two constituencies voting. One votes 51% Conservative and 49% Lib Dem. The other votes 51% Labour and 49% Lib Dem. In this case Lib Dems have 49% of the vote and no MP, where are Conservatives and Labour have 25.5% of the vote and 1 MP each. But how can you give the Lib Dems a seat when neither constituency voted for them with a majority, you can't force a constituency to take an MP they didn't want.

For me we should use transferable voting, where you number candidates from one to five etc...and the votes for the lowest candidate is transferred to the next preferred candidate until some has 50.1% of the vote. This would enable tactical voting and allow people can vote for their preferred party and still vote against the party they least want. Now at the moment tactical voting is far too prevalent and we get MPs not because they are the best, but because they are the least worst. It would also allow for better political analysis on where voters preferences actually lie. I would also add Reopen Nominations to the ballot. This way people who are unhappy with all the choices can still protest, but can also still choose the least worst option. (Also it's fun to see how if RoN could actually win in a constituency).

Next I would reform the house of Lords. I think it's been discussed in detail before, but for me it should be at least in part elected and this would be proportional representation. This way it actively reflects the will of the country. I'm not sure about long term independent members or people like the lords, because it then becomes how are they chosen and for how long. Just look at the issues with the American Supreme court. It's meant to be independent and neutral, but is completely political and partisan. How could we ensure independent members of the house of lords are truly that?

I see where you are coming from and certainly an interesting proposition. I'll have to read up on STV as I know it only very superficially (in fact, that could be said about many areas of my knowledge). Any good books you recommend that might be less dry than the wiki page?

 

[Amiga500]

Okay you tell me when difference it could of possibly made when your a minor backbench MP in the opposition because nobody has been able to tell me in years.

Did you ever consider someone has to be the errand boy when its clearly unpalatable for those in power to be seen directly talking to distasteful figures?

But that talk is absolutely critical to pulling such people toward diplomacy and dialogue rather than violence.

Or that a few words in the ears of those figures might nudge them toward a position where other low level figures from the British government then may be willing to talk to them?


Quite annoying when someone who obviously has never seen "the other side" has only seen a carefully presented view* and proclaims what those without access to any recourse should be doing.

*you probably think the BBC aren't under editorial control of the British govt too.

 

[Reiser99]

I see where you are coming from and certainly an interesting proposition. I'll have to read up on STV as I know it only very superficially (in fact, that could be said about many areas of my knowledge). Any good books you recommend that might be less dry than the wiki page?

Tbh my knowledge is based purely on my understanding of the concept and seeing it used in other political systems. For me it simply allows people to choose their favourite even if they know they will lose. At the moment in the UK many people don't vote for their preferred candidate/party because they are more worried about Labour or Conservatives winning.

The two major criticisms that I know are that firstly should someone's second or third choice vote count the same as someone's first choice vote. Also another argument constantly made is that FPTP leads to more stable governments (though personally the issue is that our politics and media are so childish and that it needs to grow up).

 

[ncurd]

Did you ever consider someone has to be the errand boy when its clearly unpalatable for those in power to be seen directly talking to distasteful figures?

But that talk is absolutely critical to pulling such people toward diplomacy and dialogue rather than violence.

Or that a few words in the ears of those figures might nudge them toward a position where other low level figures from the British government then may be willing to talk to them?


Quite annoying when someone who obviously has never seen "the other side" has only seen a carefully presented view* and proclaims what those without access to any recourse should be doing.

*you probably think the BBC aren't under editorial control of the British govt too.

Is there any evidence Corbyn actually achieved any of what your stating?

Nobody in Britain ever cited Corbyn as having any influence on the peace process until after he was leader. And nobody involved in it has cited anything he did as key since just his supporters.

Reality was his influence was almost negligible.

 

[Reiser99]

I can't believe we're back to discussing Corbyn when Johnson still isn't gone completely.

 

[Amiga500]

Is there any evidence Corbyn actually achieved any of what your stating?

Reality was his influence was almost negligible.

We know he had Sinn Fein members in Westminster in the 1980s, indeed, some highly controversial attempts to have folks over not long after the Brighton bombing.

I'd call that talking to them.

Would the Haughey led Adams-Hume talks have had the same conclusion without them seeing the big bad bogeymen in Westminster up close and personal? Probably, but not certain.


Regardless of whether his influence didn't amount to much in the end, it is immaterial to the complete incorrectness of your point:

"Corbyn got eviscerated for being pally (whatever his intentions) with many know leaders of terrorist groups including ones which were actively bombing the UK when he wasn't in a position to make any difference"

He was in a position to make a difference. If he didn't make a difference, then you can fault him for that failure, but not for making the effort.

 

[ncurd]

I can't believe we're back to discussing Corbyn when Johnson still isn't gone completely.

Your right let's get to some trolling by the current leader on the mail.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

So who do people think would be a upgrade on Johnson v a downgrade in terms of Tory leaders pov

 

[General Melchett]

So who do people think would be a upgrade on Johnson v a downgrade in terms of Tory leaders pov

I think almost any other Tory MP would be an upgrade on Johnson.

I said on here a few weeks ago that Wallace and Zahawi are probably the best of a bad bunch. After Zahawi's antics this week I'd probably go for Wallace or Sunak. People are suggesting Tugenhadt but you really need someone with cabinet experience given the Ukraine and cost of living crises.

Sunak doesn't have bags of cabinet experience but he'd probably be ok with an experienced cabinet around him. He is very bright and a good communicator (even if he does sound like Will from the Inbetweeners). Wallace seems like a good bloke and also speaks well although not sure how strong he'd be on the economy (his background is defence and the military). As long as they get rid of sh1te like Patel and Rees Mogg and build a cabinet based on capability rather than croneyism then it would be a big upgrade.