[Politics] Brexit

[abc]

Or, Europe’s quasi fascists haven’t had to ameliorate their views to win increasing swathes of seats, unhindered by FPTP. Carte blanche to be overtly anti immigrant and pro murderous Putin.

And of course Hitler might not have ever gained power without PR. So, we agree neither system is perfect. I guess my starting point is FPP has gradually disenfranchised the voting public to the point that Westminster is generally reviled and the desire for change is enabling the ascension of a right wing bunch of racists. Furthermore, only a handful of seats decide the result of every GE and this gov achieved a 'landslide' with c. 30% of the vote. In short FPP is no longer fit for purpose.

I think everyone wants change of some sort and I think achieving it through electoral reform is better than through a party called Reform.

You?

 

[TomandJerry]

SKS has said the UK will not rejoin the Customs Union as it would undermine the trade deals we have negotiated with India and the US...

So he hasn't done a bad job getting trade deals with those two and this new deal with the EU at the same time

 

[TomandJerry]

And of course Hitler might not have ever gained power without PR. So, we agree neither system is perfect. I guess my starting point is FPP has gradually disenfranchised the voting public to the point that Westminster is generally reviled and the desire for change is enabling the ascension of a right wing bunch of racists. Furthermore, only a handful of seats decide the result of every GE and this gov achieved a 'landslide' with c. 30% of the vote. In short FPP is no longer fit for purpose.

I think everyone wants change of some sort and I think achieving it through electoral reform is better than through a party called Reform.

You?

The Lib Dems have PR voting in their manifesto

 

[Weststander]

The Lib Dems have PR voting in their manifesto

For 60 years?

 

[TomandJerry]

For 60 years?

What do you mean, sorry?

 

[Weststander]

What do you mean, sorry?

Liberals, LibDems have unsurprisingly had PR as a key policy for many decades.

 

[abc]

The Lib Dems have PR voting in their manifesto

But not Labour or the tories because it would remove the guarantee that one of them would be in government.
My point exactly

 

[TomandJerry]

But not Labour or the tories because it would remove the guarantee that one of them would be in government.
My point exactly

I think the Tories will be swallowed up by Labour and Reform with or without PR

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And of course Hitler might not have ever gained power without PR. So, we agree neither system is perfect. I guess my starting point is FPP has gradually disenfranchised the voting public to the point that Westminster is generally reviled and the desire for change is enabling the ascension of a right wing bunch of racists. Furthermore, only a handful of seats decide the result of every GE and this gov achieved a 'landslide' with c. 30% of the vote. In short FPP is no longer fit for purpose.

I think everyone wants change of some sort and I think achieving it through electoral reform is better than through a party called Reform.

You?

Politicians were hated way back in the 60s.
Populist iconoclasts, however, have always been popular,
among their nutter supporters.

It is what it is.
And will stay FPTP forever, I hope.

As for Change.....

 

[Pavilionaire]

SKS has said the UK will not rejoin the Customs Union as it would undermine the trade deals we have negotiated with India and the US...

So he hasn't done a bad job getting trade deals with those two and this new deal with the EU at the same time

I agree that Labour have done well, but let's get things in perspective. India will add £5billion a year, the USA deal maybe another £5 billion tops, plus a £6.5 billion saving on US tariffs. The EU deal will add £9 billion pa by 2040. Therefore, Labour may have helped generate an additional £25 billion p.a. by these deals.

That compares with the £100 billion a year we've lost through Brexit, so maybe we've made a quarter of the ground up.

The new money will all go to increasing our defence spending by 1%. So in macro terms we've found some extra cash to fund the commitment we've made to NATO. Everything else economically stays the same, except that in doing these deals with India and USA we may have compromised ourselves with deeper trade deals with the EU.

Starmer has probably made us a bit safer than we would have been, but we are unlikely to feel the benefit at home. Indeed, our debt interest annually is still £126 billion, so a 1% rise in interest rates swallows up all of the trade deal gains. We need global interest rates to come down, but that won't happen if Trump persists with these tariffs.

Hopefully, this is just the start of something bigger, because it will need to be.

 

[abc]

Politicians were hated way back in the 60s.
Populist iconoclasts, however, have always been popular,
among their nutter supporters.

It is what it is.
And will stay FPTP forever, I hope.

As for Change.....

Why do hope we keep FPTP forever? (Genuinely interested)

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Why do hope we keep FPTP forever? (Genuinely interested)

Keeps the nutters at bay.
Farage would have 70 seats already, if Proportion Re(form)presentation had been in force last year,
and none of us would be able to escape the braying of 'betrayal' 24/7,
broadcast by obligatory rules of 'fairness' across our airwaves.

 

[A1X]

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree that Labour have done well, but let's get things in perspective. India will add £5billion a year, the USA deal maybe another £5 billion tops, plus a £6.5 billion saving on US tariffs. The EU deal will add £9 billion pa by 2040. Therefore, Labour may have helped generate an additional £25 billion p.a. by these deals.

That compares with the £100 billion a year we've lost through Brexit, so maybe we've made a quarter of the ground up.

The new money will all go to increasing our defence spending by 1%. So in macro terms we've found some extra cash to fund the commitment we've made to NATO. Everything else economically stays the same, except that in doing these deals with India and USA we may have compromised ourselves with deeper trade deals with the EU.

Starmer has probably made us a bit safer than we would have been, but we are unlikely to feel the benefit at home. Indeed, our debt interest annually is still £126 billion, so a 1% rise in interest rates swallows up all of the trade deal gains. We need global interest rates to come down, but that won't happen if Trump persists with these tariffs.

Hopefully, this is just the start of something bigger, because it will need to be.

And if not, what then?
Time for extremism.
Let's not piss about. I'm talking slavery.
We need to bring back slavery.
Its the only way to balance the books.
And, although not something we have tried on our own soil before, what about genocide?
We could either kill the poor, or monetize genocide via the National Lottery.
Come on! You know democracy is finished.
None of the parties have the charismatic leader necessary to con us into.....

 

[abc]

Keeps the nutters at bay.
Farage would have 70 seats already, if Proportion Re(form)presentation had beein in force last year,
and none of us would be able to escape the braying of 'betrayal' 24/7,
broadcast by obligatory rules of 'fairness' across our airwaves.

I get this but on the basis that we both believe in democracy, is it not right that Reform should have got those seats? Other parties would have got more and Labour less. Parliament would have represented the votes of the people and a coalition would have forged accordingly. Furthermore, Reform would now be under total scrutiny and would not be in danger of forming a gov in 4 years without it.

As an aside, I think PR would really change the traditional media stances. No paper or broadcaster would have a clue who is going to be in power so would have to be much more cautious about picking sides (a 50:50 bet now) and god forbid, might become more balanced

 

[abc]

That is embarrassing!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I get this but on the basis that we both believe in democracy, is it not right that Reform should have got those seats? Other parties would have got more and Labour less. Parliament would have represented the votes of the people and a coalition would have forged accordingly. Furthermore, Reform would now be under total scrutiny and would not be in danger of forming a gov in 4 years without it.

As an aside, I think PR would really change the traditional media stances. No paper or broadcaster would have a clue who is going to be in power so would have to be much more cautious about picking sides (a 50:50 bet now) and god forbid, might become more balanced

No.

As for the rest of your post, never underestimate the stupidity of the British electorate.
Some of them can just about get their head around the idea that if they vote for someone on the ballot, that person may be elected.
Ask them to perm 3 from 7 on a quofta of 16, and voter turnout would become even smaller,
and The Liberals (for it is them) and the Greens will continually skweem and skweem unless
by some weird turn of fate, they get enough transferred votes to form a government.

Sorry but if you support Labour or Tory you would no more support PR than a Cadbury Creme Egg would vote for Easter.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

This sums up part of the stupidity of the EU. (For those on here that can accept the EU has imperfections.)

I agree, the defence parrt of the agreement (although not yet agreed, it's only pro forma) is a Good Thing for both us and the EU. So why did they have to tie it in with fishing rights and agricultural paperwork and the ECJ and the rest? Why didn't they just agree, for mutual benefit, to to go ahead with the defence part?

As a general rule, deals that are good for both sides shouldn't need negotiations on how much one of the beneficiaries shoud pay the other.

no this post points out how stupid you are. Did you not read what you wrote before you posted?

The existing fishing deal runs out this year so needed to be agreed. It’s the same as before so no change. One of the problems for uk farmers is the paperwork involved which has now been addresed. Only someone biblically stupid would think this a bad idea.

As a general rule you cant achieve a win-win without negotiation. what world do you live in?

 

[WATFORD zero]

No.

As for the rest of your post, never underestimate the stupidity of the British electorate.
Some of them can just about get their head around the idea that if they vote for someone on the ballot, that person may be elected.
Ask them to perm 3 from 7 on a quofta of 16, and voter turnout would become even smaller,
and The Liberals (for it is them) and the Greens will continually skweem and skweem unless
by some weird turn of fate, they get enough transferred votes to form a government.

Sorry but if you support Labour or Tory you would no more support PR than a Cadbury Creme Egg would vote for Easter.

Because without FPTP there would be no 'Labour' or 'Tory' party as we see them now. The only reason that Starmer/Corbyn and Stewart/Badenoch ended up in bed together is the idea they could get absolute power over the nation with less than one in five of the electorate voting for them. Proper representation would see the end of those behemoths of ferrets fighting in sacks in search of absolute power

Imagine you being able to vote for Starmer, your brother for Corbyn, Sensible tories for Stewart and Nige and Kemi fighting over the racists, morons and swivel eyed loons.

And I NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the British Electorate

 

[A1X]

This sums up part of the stupidity of the EU. (For those on here that can accept the EU has imperfections.)

I agree, the defence parrt of the agreement (although not yet agreed, it's only pro forma) is a Good Thing for both us and the EU. So why did they have to tie it in with fishing rights and agricultural paperwork and the ECJ and the rest? Why didn't they just agree, for mutual benefit, to to go ahead with the defence part?

As a general rule, deals that are good for both sides shouldn't need negotiations on how much one of the beneficiaries shoud pay the other.

Quite right. I also think others could learn from your deal-making expertise. In a similar vein we should have had Rutter join us without having to pay Leeds a fee.