Topic: Keir Starmer: your views?

[Zeb]

Supportive of PR myself. Would say though that regardless of its merits, the debate within Labour is not driven by how much fairer it may be (or in which ways) but by the perception that it's the system itself which stops Labour getting into government. Same sort of thing which leads people to try claiming that there's hordes of lefties out there silently fuming at the Tories but sadly hypnotised by mass media into acquiescence. It's a diversion from the problem of winning elections under FPTP for Labour. Saw it with the last Labour government that the idea dropped off the radar once Labour had demonstrated they could win national elections under FPTP even as PR was introduced as the default in devolution.

[Dr. Beaker]

The LibDems having a permanent influence is fairer and preferable to an almost permanent Tory government.

[Yorkykopite]

PR is abou what is fair, not Labour's electoral prospects.

It is mainly, although in a representative democracy where all possible voting systems are potentially flawed it is not stupid to consider what the effects of a particular system will be on your party's prospects.

[Elmo!]

It is mainly, although in a representative democracy where all possible voting systems are potentially flawed it is not stupid to consider what the effects of a particular system will be on your party's prospects.

Yes true, but that is just opening up the opportunity for the aforementioned attacks by the Tories.

[Lusty]

PR is such a broad term and there's a whole spectrum of different models it could become. With that said, all of them are better than FPTP.

I'd love it if the Labour Party got fully behind electoral reform and included something to do with the House of Lords in that and maybe an English parliament.

I think PR would probably spell the end of the Labour Party though because it would split into factions. Under PR that wouldn't be a disaster though.

[TSC]

While all reasonable points arguably replacing FPTP with PR would have more of an impact on the Tories.  Personally think governance by fair representation and political consensus is best.  Of course it may be unlikely policies at either end of the political spectrum (left or right) will be fully adopted. 

[oldfordie]

PR is abou what is fair, not Labour's electoral prospects.

There is no perfect system. they all have flaws. why is PR fairer if it consistently results in giving the minority party the power to choose our government and PM. I would look at that as the worst system of all.
We should be looking at AV rather than PR. too many seats are won with far less than 50% of the constituency vote. too many seats are lost because of protest voting and split votes, you would also be voting for a person rather than a Party. if the argument is about having a fair system then AV imo is fairer than PR.

[Elmo!]

There is no perfect system. they all have flaws. why is PR fairer if it consistently results in giving the minority party the power to choose our government and PM. I would look at that as the worst system of all.
We should be looking at AV rather than PR. too many seats are won with far less than 50% of the constituency vote. too many seats are lost because of protest voting and split votes, you would also be voting for a person rather than a Party. if the argument is about having a fair system then AV imo is fairer than PR.

Thie thing is that rests on the assumption that people will vote in the same way as they do now. At the moment people vote for the least worst option in the constituency they are in. This leads to an effective 2 party system with one other nationwide party that can gain seats. PR would almost certainly in a proper multi party system that means that no one gets a majority but there are multiple options for a coalition.

If you look at the Scottish Parliament for example, any of the parties (Tories, Labour, Lib Dems & Greens) could have formed a coalition with the SNP and given them a majority. The only reason the Greens are constantly the kingmakers is becasue the other parties refuse to entertain the possibility of working with the SNP.

I think you would find the Greens would probably end up with more seats than the Lib Dems with PR - their support is more spread out than the Lib Dems so always ends up getting squeezed under FPTP.

[PatriotScouser]

If this is true and I assume it is then PR would be a disaster for Labour.
I think we have to be very careful about what we wish for.

Proportional representation would spell disaster for Labour. Party members should reject it
PR would make Labour majorities all but impossible, yet give the Lib Dems a permanent foothold on power

Richard Johnson is a lecturer in politics at Queen Mary University of London

At Labour’s annual conference this week, a motion is to be put forward calling for the party to back proportional representation (PR) for the election of MPs to the House of Commons.

There are many philosophical arguments that can be made against PR. PR makes coalition governments the norm rather than the exception. It reduces the ability of a party to deliver on its manifesto promises. It gives disproportionate weight to small parties. It encourages a more transactional form of politics, based on post-election horse-trading. It produces a more fragmented, inward-looking form of politics, whereby parties no longer need to seek broad-based electoral support in order to achieve power.

These ideas are worth debating, but there is a more immediate reason why Labour should not support PR: it would be electorally catastrophic for the party. PR would mean the end of majority Labour governments and possibly the Labour party itself.

It is easy to understand why small parties want PR. The Greens, Liberal Democrats, Ukip, the Brexit party and the BNP have all been hard done by the current first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. The electoral rationale is far more puzzling for Labour. FPTP has unquestionably been to Labour’s advantage. In every postwar election, with the exception of the 1950s and 2019, Labour has received a greater share of House of Commons seats than its share of the popular vote. This boost has sometimes been very substantial, giving Labour majorities it would not otherwise have. Even in minority, Labour usually gets more MPs than its proportionate strength in the electorate.

While this may seem “unfair” to opponents of Labour, it is strange that the party would voluntarily opt to weaken its own power. It is sometimes said that Labour should support PR, whatever the electoral costs, because it is “the right thing to do”. This attitude fetishises process and ignores the importance of outcomes. The FPTP system in Britain gives a boost to the major party of the left, making leftwing majority governments possible where they might not otherwise be. Surely, at least to party members, electing Labour governments is also “the right thing to do”.

There is also the alternative to consider. PR will not deliver majority leftwing governments in Britain. Supporters of PR like to think it will produce governments of Labour, Greens and Nationalists, collectively ushering together an eco-socialist political programme. The problem is there are not enough votes to do this under PR.

With the exception of the remarkable 1945 election, the British public have never voted in a majority for leftwing parties. Adding together the votes of Labour, the Greens, the SNP and Plaid Cymru at every other general election has never amounted to more than 50% of the vote. This is not to say that leftwing governments are impossible under PR, but there is virtually no evidence from British election history that more than 50% of British voters are prepared to vote for leftwing parties.

PR would make one party very powerful indeed: the Liberal Democrats. In fact, if MPs were allocated proportionately, the Lib Dems (and the SDP and Liberals before them) would have decided nearly every single British government in postwar history. While some commentators like to fantasise about the Lib Dems as left-of-centre fellow travellers, their recent record in government does not bear this out. When faced with the choice between giving the Conservatives a majority or supporting a Labour-led coalition in 2010, the Lib Dems opted for five years with the Conservatives, supporting some of the most vicious attacks to the British welfare state and public realm in recent history.

From a purely pragmatic view, Labour’s enchantment with PR makes little sense. From what we know about the British electorate, PR would eliminate the possibility of a future majority-Labour government. PR would not guarantee leftwing coalition governments either. What it would mean is the Lib Dems would effectively get to choose the prime minister after each election. You can understand why they are so keen, but why are Labour members?

Dr Richard Johnson is a lecturer in politics at Queen Mary University of London
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/27/proportional-representation-labour-party-lib-dems

Richard is a dear friend of mine who I know personally from our campaigning and organising in Cambridge. I completely agree with him on this as I do on most of his political opinions.

[Red-Soldier]

You dont need to change the system, you just need to have some decent policies so people can vote for you.

Disgree.

The last time a majority of voters in the UK voted Tory was in he 50s, I believe.  Yet, they keep on winning elections.  FPTP isn't fit for purpose (it is if you're a Tory of course).

[Red-Soldier]

PR is abou what is fair, not Labour's electoral prospects.

This all day long!

[Red-Soldier]

The LibDems having a permanent influence is fairer and preferable to an almost permanent Tory government.

Exactly.  I know which I'd prefer.

[Sangria]

Disgree.

The last time a majority of voters in the UK voted Tory was in he 50s, I believe.  Yet, they keep on winning elections.  FPTP isn't fit for purpose (it is if you're a Tory of course).

And if the opposition call for PR, the Tories will win an even bigger plurality. "Get Brexit done." "Save British democracy." "Sour grapes."

[Elmo!]

And if the opposition call for PR, the Tories will win an even bigger plurality. "Get Brexit done." "Save British democracy." "Sour grapes."

This kind of has shades of “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

I've thought for a while that Labour shying away from anything remotely radical because it might scare off the voters, which might have some short term gain, over the long term it's just led to this general idea that they don't really stand for anything.

[Sangria]

This kind of has shades of “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”

I've thought for a while that Labour shying away from anything remotely radical because it might scare off the voters, which might have some short term gain, over the long term it's just led to this general idea that they don't really stand for anything.

There's no long term gain without first getting the short term gain. PR requires legislative change, which requires a majority of MPs in the Commons. You first need the majority of MPs in the Commons. If you don't get that first goal, how do you suggest PR can be achieved?

Any switch to PR has to be done by a government that has been elected by FPTP. The opposition won't be able to do it, however much you may argue that it's "more representative of the people".

[Elmo!]

There's no long term gain without first getting the short term gain. PR requires legislative change, which requires a majority of MPs in the Commons. You first need the majority of MPs in the Commons. If you don't get that first goal, how do you suggest PR can be achieved?

Any switch to PR has to be done by a government that has been elected by FPTP. The opposition won't be able to do it, however much you may argue that it's "more representative of the people".

Of course it needs to be done by a party elected by FPTP - I've never argued otherwise. That's kind of besides the point I was making though which was more general.

It's just my theory, but the more you target the short term gains - by avoiding anything radical and just trying to be acceptable to soft Tories - the more that feeling of Labour not really standing for anything will set in.

Of course, it needs to be the right radical ideas, and it needs to be presented well, but I just don't think constantly shying away from everything in fear of scaring off some people is not a good look.

[Sangria]

Of course it needs to be done by a party elected by FPTP - I've never argued otherwise. That's kind of besides the point I was making though which was more general.

It's just my theory, but the more you target the short term gains - by avoiding anything radical and just trying to be acceptable to soft Tories - the more that feeling of Labour not really standing for anything will set in.

Of course, it needs to be the right radical ideas, and it needs to be presented well, but I just don't think constantly shying away from everything in fear of scaring off some people is not a good look.

My point on this though, is that any move by an opposition towards PR will give the Tories an easy guaranteed winning argument on the need to defend British democracy against sore losers who want to change the system because they can't win with the current one. We saw a version of this in 2019 as many who might not otherwise have voted Tory did so to push through the will of the people. The democratic judgement of 2016 had been obstructed, so the 2019 election gave the Tories a mandate to carry it through. Get an opposition to argue for PR, and the winning argument of 2019 will be live again.

If you want PR for the UK, then Labour needs to win power via FPTP. Then it needs a term in government that's popular enough to comfortably win another election. For that second election that it's overwhelmingly favourite to win, it includes PR in its manifesto. If you want PR for the UK, that's the quickest way of achieving it. Pushing for it before Labour win an election is a guaranteed win for the Tories. 2019 proved it.

[Elmo!]

My point on this though, is that any move by an opposition towards PR will give the Tories an easy guaranteed winning argument on the need to defend British democracy against sore losers who want to change the system because they can't win with the current one. We saw a version of this in 2019 as many who might not otherwise have voted Tory did so to push through the will of the people. The democratic judgement of 2016 had been obstructed, so the 2019 election gave the Tories a mandate to carry it through. Get an opposition to argue for PR, and the winning argument of 2019 will be live again.

If you want PR for the UK, then Labour needs to win power via FPTP. Then it needs a term in government that's popular enough to comfortably win another election. For that second election that it's overwhelmingly favourite to win, it includes PR in its manifesto. If you want PR for the UK, that's the quickest way of achieving it. Pushing for it before Labour win an election is a guaranteed win for the Tories. 2019 proved it.

It's just your presumption that is an "easy guaranteed winning argument" though.

Labour did win in 1997 with a promise to introduce PR (and then diudn't follow through).

[Sangria]

It's just your presumption that is an "easy guaranteed winning argument" though.

Labour did win in 1997 with a promise to introduce PR (and then diudn't follow through).

"Get Brexit done." was the decisive argument of the 2019 election. The Tories didn't bother with any others. Why was it so decisive when the two sides are still polarised? Listen to the arguments of the Brexiteers, and not just those whom you agree with. They won their argument in 2016, and the Remoaners were still fighting against the democratic judgement in 2019.

The Tories fought on the side of democracy in 2019. That was their sole argument in 2019, and it won them a landslide. Give them the chance, and they'll trot that argument out again.

[Elmo!]

"Get Brexit done." was the decisive argument of the 2019 election. The Tories didn't bother with any others. Why was it so decisive when the two sides are still polarised? Listen to the arguments of the Brexiteers, and not just those whom you agree with. They won their argument in 2016, and the Remoaners were still fighting against the democratic judgement in 2019.

The Tories fought on the side of democracy in 2019. That was their sole argument in 2019, and it won them a landslide. Give them the chance, and they'll trot that argument out again.

They can, but the debate can be won by Labour, as they would be on the right side. It seems a bit cowardly to refuse to take it on.

[Sangria]

They can, but the debate can be won by Labour, as they would be on the right side. It seems a bit cowardly to refuse to take it on.

When have the Tories ever been on the philosophically right side? Yet they keep winning elections. And if their opposition keep thinking that winning the philosophical argument is sufficient, then they'll keep winning elections. Their winning candidate refused interviews and hid in a fridge FFS, yet their slogan of "Get Brexit done" won them a landslide from the voters.

[Elmo!]

When have the Tories ever been on the philosophically right side? Yet they keep winning elections. And if their opposition keep thinking that winning the philosophical argument is sufficient, then they'll keep winning elections. Their winning candidate refused interviews and hid in a fridge FFS, yet their slogan of "Get Brexit done" won them a landslide from the voters.

You certainly have a point about "Get Brexit Done" but I think it is a particularly unique situation. The electorate is polarised on that issue more than anything in history I can think of, and were up against a comically inept and unpopular leader. I wouldn't read too much in too that to back up the general argument you are making.

[villagelife]

what a load of rubbish. 'potential for abuse' is the BS TERFs write about in the Daily Mail and the Scum. who is transitioning to a trans man or woman to 'abuse' anything? it's just a nonsense moral panic people have created to hide their transphobia behind.

transitioning is a difficult process, expensive and has its risks. what exactly do you mean 'fully transitioned people'? do you know the cost of doing a top and bottom surgery?

very on brand for the da's of this thread to be straying into this area, alongside some even bizarrely thinking Cummings is some sort of example to fall behind. truly the strangest thread on RAWK.

Nobody really cares though, its something that affects only a small percentage of the population but its paralysing Labour. Transrights are about number 27 on most peoples lists of priorities.

[villagelife]

"Get Brexit done." was the decisive argument of the 2019 election. The Tories didn't bother with any others. Why was it so decisive when the two sides are still polarised? Listen to the arguments of the Brexiteers, and not just those whom you agree with. They won their argument in 2016, and the Remoaners were still fighting against the democratic judgement in 2019.

The Tories fought on the side of democracy in 2019. That was their sole argument in 2019, and it won them a landslide. Give them the chance, and they'll trot that argument out again.

They werent even fighting as labour had no position on the whole thing. Corbyn set labour back at least 10 years.

[TepidT2O]

Nobody really cares though, its something that affects only a small percentage of the population but its paralysing Labour. Transrights are about number 27 on most peoples lists of priorities.

People being a minority doesn’t mean they should have rights……

[villagelife]

People being a minority doesn’t mean they should have rights……

Im not saying they shouldnt, but to the majority of people its a load of nutjobs arguing over who can use a womans toilet and throw a shotput and whether they should be called, he, she, it, thing, and the majority of people in the real world dont really give a shit. On twitter on the other hand though its a whole microcosym.

[TepidT2O]

Im not saying they shouldnt, but to the majority of people its a load of nutjobs arguing over who can use a womans toilet and throw a shotput and whether they should be called, he, she, it, thing, and the majority of people in the real world dont really give a shit. On twitter on the other hand though its a whole microcosym.

But trans people give a shit.

And it’s what was said about gay people too back in the day

For me, it will take a few years of knocking things around before everyone comes to a sensible accommodation

[Snail]

Im not saying they shouldnt, but to the majority of people its a load of nutjobs arguing over who can use a womans toilet and throw a shotput and whether they should be called, he, she, it, thing, and the majority of people in the real world dont really give a shit. On twitter on the other hand though its a whole microcosym.

Once these people have suppressed the trans community, they'll go for the rest of the LGBTQ community. It's a tale as old as time, and I'm amazed and saddened that people don't recognise it for what it is.

[Zeb]

Wouldn't phrase as villagelife, nor as Cummings trollingly put it, but there's a solid case for not making some things the headline news every time a party is mentioned, nor in indulging those who think abuse is a substitute for persuasion. It's not even those who disagree, it's the perception that the party has vanished off away from other issues which have more salience to most people even among those who already agree or are open to persuasion. Kind of hard to stop anything becoming law without a majority in parliament. Need to build a way to that, and some things done with the best of intentions are counterproductive to being able to move things forward whatsoever.

[idontknow]

Once these people have suppressed the trans community, they'll go for the rest of the LGBTQ community. It's a tale as old as time, and I'm amazed and saddened that people don't recognise it for what it is.

They're sharpening their pickaxes, making wolf sounds, pounding their chests, going off out to the woods.
The woods?
Hang on, that's scary, not heading off down their alone
We'll go together.
It's dark.
We'll take torches.
But how will we recognise each other?
Oh, we need to put on a nice visible piece of attire.
Like a sheet?
That'll do it, fucking boss
And what are we looking for again?
Anything out and about that's not dressed up in your mother's curtains with a scary beach spade and a lighter in its hand and not singing mull of kintyre backwards.
Ok, so this tree then.
No, they have exclusions, mark it for later.
Why?
I don't think you understand the threat to our culture. There are, well, there are things, I'm not getting into it now. It's obvious. Just think of your, well, just think. It's too complex right now. Just lift your hems up, there's puddles, it doesn't do for the papparazzi you have a rim of sludge round your trouser bottoms when the photos flash. People should be focused to the capture dangling off the bough not on your shitty shoes.

[villagelife]

Once these people have suppressed the trans community, they'll go for the rest of the LGBTQ community. It's a tale as old as time, and I'm amazed and saddened that people don't recognise it for what it is.

Have a word with yourself its 2021 not the 80's.  That tale as old of time you speak off, what happens at the end?  has the Uk constintely eroded the rights of the LGBTQ communitty? Are they get rounded up like the uigyurs in China, are they gettting beheaded like a female of the afghanistan volleyball team in Afghanistan? If you want a source just google it, if you can be arsed.

If you want to talk about privelege, talk about a UK privelege or a commonwealth priveledge. because thats what it is. If you live in the UK you are part of the less than 0.08% of the worlds population where the police dont carry guns.  Theres 8bn people on this planet, if you had a poll of how many people would want to move to the UK you would probably get a 99% majority.

If i, a white scouser walked into a pub in St Puals in Bristol in a three piece suit. do you think i should have to worry? Do you think i will be accepted for what i am? And just be able to have3 a pint without worrying if Im going to be judged or have the piss taken out of me.    And if I did the same in Eberle St, do you think there would be a different outcome.

[villagelife]

They're sharpening their pickaxes, making wolf sounds, pounding their chests, going off out to the woods.
The woods?
Hang on, that's scary, not heading off down their alone
We'll go together.
It's dark.
We'll take torches.
But how will we recognise each other?
Oh, we need to put on a nice visible piece of attire.
Like a sheet?
That'll do it, fucking boss
And what are we looking for again?
Anything out and about that's not dressed up in your mother's curtains with a scary beach spade and a lighter in its hand and not singing mull of kintyre backwards.
Ok, so this tree then.
No, they have exclusions, mark it for later.
Why?
I don't think you understand the threat to our culture. There are, well, there are things, I'm not getting into it now. It's obvious. Just think of your, well, just think. It's too complex right now. Just lift your hems up, there's puddles, it doesn't do for the papparazzi you have a rim of sludge round your trouser bottoms when the photos flash. People should be focused to the capture dangling off the bough not on your shitty shoes.

I donk know.

[villagelife]

It's just your presumption that is an "easy guaranteed winning argument" though.

Labour did win in 1997 with a promise to introduce PR (and then diudn't follow through).

It did sort of follow through, we had a referndum im 2011 for alternative voting, the Lib dems, SNP, plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein and UKIP voted for it, the Tories voted against it and labour..........had no official position.......I voted for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

[So… Howard Philips]

Stormer suggesting that exclusion orders be sought to deal with anti vax buffoons congregating outside schools. Let's see what action are supine government takes;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59032991

[Red-Soldier]

Stormer suggesting that exclusion orders be sought to deal with anti vax buffoons congregating outside schools. Let's see what action are supine government takes;

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59032991

Many Tory councils use them to move on homeless people.  Be interesting to see if they're so keen on using them on these groups.

[RainbowFlick]

Have a word with yourself its 2021 not the 80's.  That tale as old of time you speak off, what happens at the end?  has the Uk constintely eroded the rights of the LGBTQ communitty? Are they get rounded up like the uigyurs in China, are they gettting beheaded like a female of the afghanistan volleyball team in Afghanistan? If you want a source just google it, if you can be arsed.

If you want to talk about privelege, talk about a UK privelege or a commonwealth priveledge. because thats what it is. If you live in the UK you are part of the less than 0.08% of the worlds population where the police dont carry guns.  Theres 8bn people on this planet, if you had a poll of how many people would want to move to the UK you would probably get a 99% majority.

If i, a white scouser walked into a pub in St Puals in Bristol in a three piece suit. do you think i should have to worry? Do you think i will be accepted for what i am? And just be able to have3 a pint without worrying if Im going to be judged or have the piss taken out of me.    And if I did the same in Eberle St, do you think there would be a different outcome.

sorry but comparing the UK to other countries is a really nasty thing to do. trans people or indeed other minorities shouldn't suddenly just feel grateful because we live in a (subjectively) less shit country and shut up and get on with our day like there's nothing going wrong here.

[RainbowFlick]

Nobody really cares though, its something that affects only a small percentage of the population but its paralysing Labour. Transrights are about number 27 on most peoples lists of priorities.

so? if you're not standing on the side of trans people, or any minority, i would suggest you're not left-wing at all. you can have your labour party.

perhaps so-called labour members need to stop subconsciously submitting to right-wing culture wars in this country.

[oldfordie]

so? if you're not standing on the side of trans people, or any minority, i would suggest you're not left-wing at all. you can have your labour party.

Bit more to it than that. people in some minority groups think any Labour politician who disagrees with their arguments isn't on their side.

[Yorkykopite]

so? if you're not standing on the side of trans people, or any minority, i would suggest you're not left-wing at all. you can have your labour party.

perhaps so-called labour members need to stop subconsciously submitting to right-wing culture wars in this country.

I agree that the Labour party should be in the business of defending minority rights and that the protection afforded to unpopular views or despised groups is a key part of democratic socialism - or should be.  The Trans debate is not a straightforward one though. I'm not entirely on top of it, and wouldn't wish to be, but I do know that there are many feminists who are in the firing line. Several well-known ones have been 'no platformed' because they're not FULLY on board with EVERYTHING that the Trans community want. That complicates things, obviously. 

[Alan_X]

I agree that the Labour party should be in the business of defending minority rights and that the protection afforded to unpopular views or despised groups is a key part of democratic socialism - or should be.  The Trans debate is not a straightforward one though. I'm not entirely on top of it, and wouldn't wish to be, but I do know that there are many feminists who are in the firing line. Several well-known ones have been 'no platformed' because they're not FULLY on board with EVERYTHING that the Trans community want. That complicates things, obviously. 

I think that's the problem. It is far from straightforward and it shouldn't be a defining issue for the Labour Party.