hallicks Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 On a slightly related note, the government have sped up the asylum claim system. The result is that the systems that normally deal with the successful claimants have been completely overrun and hundreds of them are ending up homeless. https://www.bigissue.com/news/social-justice/homeless-refugees-rise-home-office-asylum-accommodation/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 33 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:  If the solution he is proposing is a good solution, and it addresses the particular concerns of a group is it wrong to speak about it in that context with the people for whom that is the concern they have?  Yeah, if Labour can sort out the backlog and get processing back up to speed and asylum seekers can be granted asylum quickly I think that would be brilliant. If you’re dressing it up though as something to appease the right wing because that’s the votes you want, I think you’ll alienate people who don’t like the right.  Personally I think the tories have deliberately caused this and amplified it because they’ve got fuck all, so they need a problem they can blame on others and act like the saviours of the problem. They could solve it within months with two strokes of a pen (Staff to process the backlog and a centre overseas to stop the crossings) 40 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: That wasn't a speech for you How so? I’m a potential Labour voter so why wasn’t it for me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted December 12, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted December 12, 2023 11 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: How so? I’m a potential Labour voter so why wasn’t it for me? That speech was to woo right wing voters, you are on the left Keith. So the speech wasn't aimed at you. I'm not sure Keir is capable of delivering a speech that would woo you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted December 12, 2023 Moderators Share Posted December 12, 2023 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: How so? I’m a potential Labour voter so why wasn’t it for me? I actually hadn't realised it was a major speech with significant coverage tbh. But my point broadly is that it's quite difficult for a politician to make a genuine and personal statement to a distinct group of voters about their concerns without it being scrutinised in a broader context and potentially being taken out of context, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. I guess it's just the way things are these days. On the one hand it ensures that the message is consistent, or they'll be quickly found out. But on the other hand it makes it all very generic and impersonal, and makes it much harder to really connect with people. How do you have a 'broad church' with the inability to reframe things in a way that matters to the audience you're speaking to? If we don't want discourse to be at the lowest common denominator we need to be able to have an amount of good faith. Edited December 12, 2023 by Chest Rockwell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 12 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said: That speech was to woo right wing voters, you are on the left Keith. So the speech wasn't aimed at you. I'm not sure Keir is capable of delivering a speech that would woo you. And that’s a bit of an issue for me, taking for granted voters in the hope of winning over (or winning back to be fair) people who vote(d) Tory. It says one set of voters is more important than another.  But as with every election, I’ll read the manifesto’s before deciding who to vote for. 12 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: I actually hadn't realised it was a major speech with significant coverage tbh. But my point broadly is that it's quite difficult for a politician to make a genuine and personal statement to a distinct group of voters about their concerns without it being scrutinised in a broader context and potentially being taken out of context, and I'm not sure how I feel about that. I guess it's just the way things are these days. On the one hand it ensures that the message is consistent, or they'll be quickly found out. But on the other hand it makes it all very generic and impersonal, and makes it much harder to really connect with people. This for me is where constituency MPs prove their worth. I believe that a good constituency MP gets a percentage of votes irrespective of their party. Of course, if you don’t have that seat and want to win it, you’ll get the big guns out when targeting it. What Starmer was talking about in his speech wasn’t local issues, it was countrywide issues.   15 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said: If we don't want discourse to be at the lowest common denominator we need to be able to have an amount of good faith. Therein lies the rub. Starmer doesn’t have any. He lies and u turns constantly, saying whatever he and his advisers think will get him power even if he said something contrary a week ago. As Steve Coogan said, he waits to see what the general consensus is before agreeing with it. In that respect he is no different from Johnson. They both see the crowd marching and then run in front of it shouting “Follow me!”  Ava Vidal said this on LBC earlier. She makes a good point, but I don’t agree that Labour would be just as bad as the tories, just marginally better.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted December 12, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted December 12, 2023 7 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: And that’s a bit of an issue for me, taking for granted voters in the hope of winning over (or winning back to be fair) people who vote(d) Tory. It says one set of voters is more important than another. Some voters are more important than others and that has always been the case. To think anything else is naive. He isn't taking your vote for granted, he doesn't care about your vote this time around. They will have focus grouped this to death. This is one of the very few areas the Tories can gain any traction in the polls. All Keir cares about is winning. That speech was for the pro brexit former red wall voters who voted Tory last time who he wants to win back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 4 minutes ago, Lion_of_the_Midlands said: All Keir cares about is winning Exactly. And if that means being a competent Tory, that’s what he’ll do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Lion_of_the_Midlands Posted December 12, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted December 12, 2023 2 minutes ago, Keith Houchen said: Exactly. And if that means being a competent Tory, that’s what he’ll do. I genuinely think a majority of the country just wants competence. That would be a real change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Houchen Posted December 12, 2023 Share Posted December 12, 2023 Just now, Lion_of_the_Midlands said: I genuinely think a majority of the country just wants competence. That would be a real change. To paraphrase the old saying, the people I want to be boring are my bank manager and leading politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 I think the big question is whether you think the leaders of the major left- and right- wing parties should be the best person to lead a left- or right- wing party, or whether you think they should be the best person to lead the country. A lot of people believe the former. That the Labour leader should be the embodiment of the socialism or social democracy of the day, and look to build a coalition of voters from there (historically, this doesn’t really work to be fair). Others believe they should, from opposition, look to be someone picked from the left but who could feasibly run a government for everybody. Keir Starmer is clearly of this belief and isn’t trying to run a Labour Party for the left, but one that can appeal for everyone. That isn’t always pleasant if you’re left of centre, but it’s much more likely to win elections. The country is a lot more right wing than we sometimes like to believe, and their votes mean as much as everyone else’s. I still believe a Labour government, led from the centre, is better than a Tory one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members BigJag Posted December 13, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted December 13, 2023 Is it a good thing for someone like Ava Vidal to present not voting as an option? It will just allow dissaffected potential voters an excuse to further divorce themselves from the voting process. I'm constantly amazed at how many people I know that do not make the effort to use their right to vote. I guess they also have the right to not vote. I recently had a conversation with a friend on his refusal to vote. He chooses to abstain from voting. In the belief that it absolves him from being party to international military action. Such as Iraq and the current Israeli action in Gaza and the middle east. I often get the reply of "All politicians are the same", "My vote won't make a difference". What is the best way to counter that attitude? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Healys Chutney Spoon Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 I've been a huge fan of First Past The Post but I'm coming around more to Proportional Representation as I think the world has changed a lot from 'Whigs and Tories' and subsequently 'Labour and Conservative' and now a much broader range of views are held and therefore a wider representation is needed in making the decisions in Parliament. Problem is there isn't the will of any party to do it as they are all too scared of not getting as much control.  I dunno if perhaps we should have regionalised 'governors' that make national decisions and have county 'governments' that are responsible for each area. I'm not a fan of, say, the SNP having a say in how things are done in Essex, but that's how things are and I accept that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d-d-d-dAz Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 (edited) I used to be very pro-proportional representation, but you actually look at its application in Europe particularly and it creates absolute basket cases. Geert Wilders won the Dutch election with 37 seats because the vote was so split, other democracies are completely ground to a halt by an inability to form coalition governments. Our system worked better when people accepted that parties were a broad coalition of voices on either side of the political divide, negotiating and compromising on matters of policy and how to administer government. Polarisation and the desire for ideological purity has definitely fucked that a bit, but I think it’d be made worst by PR. It’s a really interesting discussion, though, as it’s really a question of where you want your compromise. Our system is based on the compromise coming pre-election, between groups of people that form political parties, and PR is based on the compromising coming after elections between more polarised, smaller parties who don’t have enough votes to govern alone. I tend to prefer ours, as it makes for more stable government and a clearer view for the electorate of what they’ll actually get if a certain party wins (the Lib Dem’s are currently eating the shit for what happens when coalitions tear up your platform). Farage would be way more powerful in a PR system. I instinctively don’t like that idea, Edited December 13, 2023 by d-d-d-dAz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted December 13, 2023 Paid Members Share Posted December 13, 2023 1 hour ago, BigJag said: What is the best way to counter that attitude? I've always thought that voting should be legally required of every adult in the country. Even if it's just ticking a "none of the above" box, people should be legally required to engage in the political process. As for proportional representation, I have no idea what the answer is but I know that my vote is worth less than a vote in many other places in the country and that fucks me off more than just about anything. I don't know what system needs to be in place for this to be the case but every vote should be worth the exact same regardless of where you live Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRooster Posted December 13, 2023 Share Posted December 13, 2023 18 minutes ago, d-d-d-dAz said: I used to be very pro-proportional representation, but you actually look at its application in Europe particularly and it creates absolute basket cases. Geert Wilders won the Dutch election with 37 seats because the vote was so split, other democracies are completely ground to a halt by an inability to form coalition governments. It's what we have in Scotland, and I think it works well. You're right in saying it would give Farage more power, but it would also give more of a voice to the Greens, and - in theory - give them more power. That's what we've seen happen here, and in a world which is at the brink of succumbing to a climate catastrophe, that's probably helpful. 1 hour ago, Big'Olympic_Hero'Pete said: I dunno if perhaps we should have regionalised 'governors' that make national decisions and have county 'governments' that are responsible for each area. I'm not a fan of, say, the SNP having a say in how things are done in Essex, but that's how things are and I accept that. PR wouldn't benefit the SNP at Westminster - they'd end up with less seats as a result. That said, the SNP is a more left-leaning party than Labour these days, so if they were to get involved in a Westminster coalition government I don't necessarily think it would be a bad thing in terms of the direction they'd push the government. However, I don't think any Westminster party would get involved with the SNP. Labour have vowed not to, and Scottish Labour seems to prefer getting into coalitions with the Tories at councils across Scotland, rather than the SNP; even though they are (or should be) more politically similar to the SNP, with the constitution being the main dividing line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.