Well the immigrants will now be handed a welcome pack on the beaches. The party that created this mess (Blair) will now make it worse.
We are heading for a more polarised Britain. The war will be waged on immigration issues. Nige vs Starm will make entertaining PMQ viewing. A vacuum in centre ground is a recipe for insipient civil war.
On a brighter note, an awful lot of completely ineffectual centrists have been deposed.
The Socialists have too many tricks and too much media control especially BBC to allow anything or anyone to stand in their way.The fact is Socialism and Democracy are an oxymoron.If Socialism is given a place at the table then democracy is irrelevant.As we’ve seen throughout European history.
The real test will be when these Bolsheviks come to take property and wealth from those on their target list for ‘redistribution’.Obviously the Blairs, Browns, and Starmers and fat cat train drivers will be exempt from that theft fest.
Polarised indeed.
Bearing in mind Stalin, Hitler and Honiker all claimed a democratic mandate for their regimes.Democracy doesn’t work.
That got dark pretty quick 
Be careful what you wish for…
Check out these figures Ro.
Labour 9,712,011 votes = 411 MPs.
Con 6,814,469 votes = 121 MPs
Reform 4,114,287 votes = 5 MPs.
I’ve always been a bit sceptical of proportional Representation thinking that it would probably lead to weak government incapable of doing anything (I could be wrong 
), but when you look at the figures for this election you do have to wonder how fair the first past the post system is.
I understand that with the first past the post system there will be anomalies but for the Lib Dems to get over 14 times as many MPs than Reform with a smaller proportion of the overall votes seems a bit odd.
| Party | Number of votes | Percentage of overall vote | Number of MPs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liberal Democrat | 3,501,040 | 12.2% | 71 |
| Reform Party | 4,114,287 | 14.3% | 5 |
Reform did well.
That argument has been used, but look at what already happens with FPTP:
Cameron first had a minority gov, so entered a coalition with the Lib-Dems. May had a minority in 2017 and allied with the DUP.
In this election run up some (mostly Tories) were worried about a Labour super-majority. Pretty much what they had with the Johnson 80 seat majority! In the UK system you can’t do any more with a 200 majority than with a 20 seat majority. But that is an aside.
For years the Lib-Dem and Greens have also been under-represented in Parliament. And it seems to me that if there were PR then even more would vote for minority parties because in m,any constituencies a vote for one of these was seen as a “wasted vote”.
Many other countries use a form of PR and they aren’t all ungovernable basket cases.
The idea that a small party holds “the balance of power” may have some merit in theory, but in reality it does not mean that a coalition Gov is always powerless.
PR is not perfect, but it seems better than FPTP.
And if we are here…
Pay all MPs more, but any/all money from 2nd jobs are to taxed at 100%
All parties are to funded by the state partly correlated to voter preference.
And if we are feeling really brave…
Sortition
Sortition as I see it:
A Gov of 900(?) citizens, randomly chosen from the general population. Some sort of basic schooling requirement maybe, but not an educated elite.
They sit in committees for 3 years? And one third is replaced every year on a rolling basis.
Experts and interested parties talk to them and then they vote on decisions to be made. Civil servants administer those decisions as they do today.
Experts etc educating and explaining to ordinary folk, without the influence of financial inducements, and with any/all persuasion all in public view with opportunity for counter argument made in public too.
It is after all how we “elect” juries today.
OR
Se up various committees each sitting a week or a month to deal with smaller issues, so none are taken away from careers for 3 years?
[as an aside…] yes, preferably with clear diction, an understanding of the difference between American English and UK English and not starting sentences with ‘so’ would be a great start!
1 Like
It’s more about the discrepancy between the Labour seat count for less than 10 million votes v that of all the other Parties especially Reform’s 4million +.
The low ‘turnout’ figure could also be hiding a Reform vote count can of worms.
As it stands the combined Reform and Conservative vote outweighs that of Labour.
Why would anyone be sceptical of PR when anything less isn’t democracy.Assuming Democracy hasn’t run its course at worse too easily rigged and hijacked and at best dictatorship by force of numbers.
I would also add a requirement for an “interpreter” permanently attached to each MP or spokesperson, who sole job is to give a clear and honest interpretation of what the elected person said.
“So…” = I’m stalling for time while I concoct my yarn
“I want to be absolutely clear…” = I think you’re all idiots an I’m going to blatantly lie to you
“Random Buzzword” = I heard my HOC mate say this and I was confused as to what it meant, so I reckon you will be too
The big one for me is not so much the use of “So…” as a sentence starter, it’s the frequent use of “Look…” or “Listen…” randomly inserted at any point in an interview.
They must think this sounds strong and positive, but to me it’s far too much of an imperative, they’re giving you an order, at that my hackles start to rise, to me it means “I’m getting effed off with with this and I’m starting to square up to you pal.”
1 Like
We have had spells recently where the inner factions in the Conservatives have had moments in the spotlight, going forward time will tell how united Labour will be in power, you could argue with a small majority that the PM / cabinet are more at the mercy of any MP’s with a desire to not follow the whip when a vote comes to pass.
Listening to Starmer’s speech yesterday I believe he’s got good intentions (those same things that the road to Hell is paved with), he speaks as if he dislikes a lot of the things that most ordinary people dislike. If he can follow through and “walk the walk”, potentially things could improve - time will tell.
i havent listened to his speech yet but im looking forward to tuesday when he enacts his plan to save the nhs, sorts immigration and finds 6 thousand teachers.
If you had taken the time to listen to him you’d know that he’s been very straight with people, making it clear there are no quick fixes and it is going to take time to even begin to make an imact on the mess, let alone actually clean it up.
“This will take a while.
But have no doubt that the work of change begins - immediately.”
But don’t let that distract you from blaming Angela Raynor for all the ills of the world, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that the mess KS has to deal with is the result of fourteen years of Tory rule, including that significant portion of time when your idol Bojo was running the show
I think you’re right.
With a small majority a few dissenters can be influential.
With a big majority factions and sub groups feel more able to throw their weight around.
ERG and Tufton St with the Tories as you say.
If a party has a very narrow remit then it will never be big enough to govern. If it has a very “broad church” or “big tent” attitude then it will have internal tensions.
Party politics is a very complicated game.
im just going off his election promises that every one told me was possible and sencible