[Politics] Suggestions for what an incoming Labour government should do, once it has blagged its way in

[Peacehaven Wild Kids]

Sadly as a Labour supporter of over 40 years now on the verge of an election win I now find myself “politically homeless” as they say.
The way Corbyn was thrown under the bus by a couple of them live on Tory Time just after the initial attacks in Israel was the end for me.

[puts on tin hat]

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Okay.

If PR existed in the 2005 election, UKIP would’ve won approximately 80 seats - possibly more if voters knew that voting for their outsider had a chance of representation in government.

Do you think this is a good or bad thing?

I wouldn’t use the term “a good thing” but I accept this as a consequence. It’s similar to AfD over here. I one respect I prefer them to be “out” and properly challenged as opposed to sniping from the unelected side-lines.

 

[pb21]

But the point I’m making is that it’s the LCER who remain the loudest voice calling for electoral reform. There seems to be this misapprehension that opening the door will somehow damage the Tories and let in fringe socialist groups. “The people will rise and have their voices heard”.

What they don’t seem to appreciate is that in real terms, the only party who didn’t get their “just desserts” in the 2005 election were UKIP. There isn’t this clamouring for The Communist Party of Great Britain to be in government.

In fact all parties left of Labour received fewer votes combined than the Greens and roughly on par with independent candidates.

I think you're correct, although I would say that if the LCER are the loudest voice that could be a direct correlation to them being the largest group, assuming they are?

Regardless, even if the LCER are the loudest because they think it will damage the tories but they are wrong, that doesn't mean that FPTP is necessarily better than PR, or that there is no merit in a PR system.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But the point I’m making is that it’s the LCER who remain the loudest voice calling for electoral reform. There seems to be this misapprehension that opening the door will somehow damage the Tories and let in fringe socialist groups. “The people will rise and have their voices heard”.

What they don’t seem to appreciate is that in real terms, the only party who didn’t get their “just desserts” in the 2005 election were UKIP. There isn’t this clamouring for The Communist Party of Great Britain to be in government.

In fact all parties left of Labour received fewer votes combined than the Greens and roughly on par with independent candidates.

I’m sorry but I’m not entirely sure of the point you’re trying to make. Are you in favor of, or prefer, FPTP? For me it’s not that it will necessarily damage the Tories…I just feel it’s a fairer and more representative, not to mention collaborative, approach.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Be honest with people firstly.

Secondly completely reform the NHS. The wastage is/was shocking, too many people abusing the emergency system to jump the ridiculous queues. Introduce a penalty system for missed appointments, charge for same day appointments which is refundable if deemed speed was necessary. Life saving treatment prioritised over elective procedures, queues for less urgent treatment can be jumped by private healthcare.

Works well here, and I do not have private health insurance.

 

[Happy Exile]

If Labour could make laws to enable a massive - but socially benign - Trumpesque purge of the self-serving Tories bloating the Lords and also prevent future Tory governments being so corrupt and immoral that'd be good. Otherwise whatever they do while in power nothing will ever really change.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

But the point I’m making is that it’s the LCER who remain the loudest voice calling for electoral reform. There seems to be this misapprehension that opening the door will somehow damage the Tories and let in fringe socialist groups. “The people will rise and have their voices heard”.

What they don’t seem to appreciate is that in real terms, the only party who didn’t get their “just desserts” in the 2005 election were UKIP. There isn’t this clamouring for The Communist Party of Great Britain to be in government.

In fact all parties left of Labour received fewer votes combined than the Greens and roughly on par with independent candidates.

Where are you getting UKIP having 80 seats in 2005 from?
They only got 2.2% of the vote that election. Which under a directly proportional system would lead to 14 seats and under an STV system might give them a couple from wherever that vote happens to be most concentrated.
I assume you mean 2015, but even then 12% of the vote under STV wouldn't lead to 12% of seats (it'd give them much more than 1, but that's a good thing).
And it's not true to say UKIP were the only party screwed over by FPTP either. No party should be getting over 50% of seats from 35% of the vote like the Conservatives did. And the Lib Dems should have had far more than the 8 MPs they got for their 8% of the vote as well.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Be honest with people firstly.

Secondly completely reform the NHS. The wastage is/was shocking, too many people abusing the emergency system to jump the ridiculous queues. Introduce a penalty system for missed appointments, charge for same day appointments which is refundable if deemed speed was necessary. Life saving treatment prioritised over elective procedures, queues for less urgent treatment can be jumped by private healthcare.

Works well here, and I do not have private health insurance.

I’d have a separate health tax and install the same as what we have here i.e.

“the most restriction-free and consumer-oriented healthcare system in Europe. Patients are allowed to seek almost any type of care they wish whenever they want it. In 2017, the government health system in Germany kept a record reserve of more than €18 billion which made it one of the healthiest healthcare systems in the world at the time”

What’s not to like?

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

I preface by saying none of this need be in the manifesto, because winning is the thing, and tactics are the tool there. Not showing one's hand.

OK, hands up, I’m a Labour member (rejoined after SKS became leader and Jezza was flushed down the khazi of history; good Arabian word there, khazi, Jez, me old fruit).

In an ideal world, if you support labour, what would be you key objectives? Here are mine

• The health service
  • More GPs and nurses. Make it easy for overseas trained bods to come here.
  • A very cheap ‘pay’ element. I was charged peanuts for this as a foreign student when I lived in Canada. And had surgery for nowt extra. A small fee incentivises good behaviour (like turning up for appointments)
  • UK trained (subsidised as they are) graduates must work in the NHS and only in the NHS for a set period. After that period if they want to leave the NHS they can do so an work in the private sector. And only in the private sector. We trained you to work for us.
  • Private sector, no tax breaks, and no ‘making use’ of NHS facilities.
• Immigration
  • Arrange with the French to stop the boats leaving. This could mean Brit patrol boats in French waters. Whence the boats are returned to France.
  • No silly gimmicks like Rwanda
  • Properly deal with Albanian gangs operating in the UK
  • A NZ style tariff system that is easy to navigate
  • Flexibility as needs must (see the NHS which is blighted by staff shortages)
  • Stop weaponizing it.
• State sector pay
  • Fix it to GDP
  • Stop regional competition (why is my university ‘competing’ with other universities for HMG income?)
• Schooling
  • Schools are not charities and so private schools should pay tax. Properly
• Global warming
  • We are not a big player here. Press India, Brazil and the US with lobbying, deals etc.
• The EU
  • Too soon to say. Rejoin? The boat has probably sailed. In 10 years perhaps, if the Irish issue isn’t resolved
• Devolution
  • I’m not keen. Nor on weakly-defined referenda. If we offer a chance for a UK break up, the terms need to be clear before a vote. Passports to Cardiff? Fence, frankly.
• The BBC
  • It costs me far less then Sky so leave it alone
• Israel
  • That horse bolted in 1948. As with the rest of the world, if it is diplomacy we can do our bit quietly. If its war, we line up behind America. We need to regain some global credibility before we deign to gob off independently.
• Tax
  • Flat rate (%) which is fair. Anyone saying the more you earn the more % you pay is innumerate. With adjustments at the poverty end (i.e., no income tax paid if you earn less than X)
• Housing
  • End the rental sector by requiring all second home owners (who own to rent) to sell. There, a bit of hard leftism for you
  • Council housing? Fence. It could be useful but not as a sinecure.
  • I think we need planning to be done centrally with a view to creating sharp new dwellings and communities. This rabbit hutch estate situation that is not integrated into the local community is bollocks. Set up a national planning group with a simple and clear mandate and rubric. Alas I suspect this is beyond the tiny British mind.
  • 
    
  • That lot of bollocks took me 10 minutes to think up. Is it really that hard? Frankly I am not fussed about lots of other stuff. We have better protection against prejudice, victimisation and that, so I have not gone granular on that.

Count me in. I’ll vote for you H…..

Disagree with most of the NHS though…

Pay nurses and diagnostic staff significantly more and at least 10% above agency.
cap agency rates, particularly in radiography and nursing.
GPs, just get them working on complex healthcare, all other things nurse led. GPs should even be made to work in A&E weekly for a day. Get rid of Local Medical Committee.
Protocolised treatment is already established., so practice nurses can cope.
Agree graduates, but even when they go private they are still required to work at least 70% of sessions in NHS.
Private sector I’d maintain their access but charge more, they are supporting keeping waiting lists down in other ways.
More use diagnostic facilities outside of the NHS….

 

[jcdenton08]

Where are you getting UKIP having 80 seats in 2005 from?
They only got 2.2% of the vote that election. Which under a directly proportional system would lead to 14 seats and under an STV system might give them a couple from wherever that vote happens to be most concentrated.
I assume you mean 2015, but even then 12% of the vote under STV wouldn't lead to 12% of seats (it'd give them much more than 1, but that's a good thing).
And it's not true to say UKIP were the only party screwed over by FPTP either. No party should be getting over 50% of seats from 35% of the vote like the Conservatives did. And the Lib Dems should have had far more than the 8 MPs they got for their 8% of the vote as well.

Apologies, I meant 2015, this was a typo.

“If the system were perfectly proportional, that 12.4% of the vote would give UKIP 12.4% of MPs—around 80 out of 650 in total.

The Electoral Reform Society, which campaigns for a change from the current ‘first past the post’ system, estimates that UKIP would have won 80 seats under a ‘list PR’ system, 54 under a ‘single transferable vote’ regime, and stayed at one using the ‘alternative vote’ that was rejected at a 2011 referendum.”

How many seats could UKIP have under a different voting system? - Full Fact

UKIP got 12.4% of the vote in 2015 but had just one MP elected.

fullfact.org

 

[Comrade Sam]

Who do you consider rich?

The wealth of the top 1% if taxed properly, would absolutely transform Britain. Along with serious taxing of corporations and the fossil fuel giants.

 

[jcdenton08]

I’m sorry but I’m not entirely sure of the point you’re trying to make. Are you in favor of, or prefer, FPTP? For me it’s not that it will necessarily damage the Tories…I just feel it’s a fairer and more representative, not to mention collaborative, approach.

Yes, I am. I think it is the safest method of choosing a unified government able to enact actual policy change by winning votes in the Commons.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Apologies, I meant 2015, this was a typo.

“If the system were perfectly proportional, that 12.4% of the vote would give UKIP 12.4% of MPs—around 80 out of 650 in total.

The Electoral Reform Society, which campaigns for a change from the current ‘first past the post’ system, estimates that UKIP would have won 80 seats under a ‘list PR’ system, 54 under a ‘single transferable vote’ regime, and stayed at one using the ‘alternative vote’ that was rejected at a 2011 referendum.”

How many seats could UKIP have under a different voting system? - Full Fact

UKIP got 12.4% of the vote in 2015 but had just one MP elected.

fullfact.org

The Electoral Reform society don't argue for a list PR system (almost nobody does, it's only politicians who don't want to risk direct accountability who think that's a good idea).
Given FPTP elections over the last few years have given us a Conservative majority (based on 35% of the vote) which gave us the EU referendum, a Conservative minority propped up by the DUP, and the current government, I'm honestly struggling to imagine what realistic bogeyman could be put up that would make me think "Christ, we can't risk having that under another system".

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yes, I am. I think it is the safest method of choosing a unified government able to enact actual policy change by winning votes in the Commons.

The past decade or so has shown little/zero with regards to unified government though.

 

[jcdenton08]

The Electoral Reform society don't argue for a list PR system (almost nobody does, it's only politicians who don't want to risk direct accountability who think that's a good idea).
Given FPTP elections over the last few years have given us a Conservative majority (based on 35% of the vote) which gave us the EU referendum, a Conservative minority propped up by the DUP, and the current government, I'm honestly struggling to imagine what realistic bogeyman could be put up that would make me think "Christ, we can't risk having that under another system".

Well, where we can agree is for the short term let’s get the Tories out. And the only option to do to that is Starmer’s Labour (a bit like “Wayne Rooney’s Birmingham” )

I am very surprised by so many Labour supporters being anti Starmer when it means having a Labour government. Very strange to me.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

The past decade or so has shown little/zero with regards to unified government though.

Well they're unified in regards to all having been shit...
I agree with your post above incidentally, the important issue should be making more votes count and encouraging a more constructive approach to politics in general and in the Commons. Not just "this'll screw the Tories".

 

[jcdenton08]

The past decade or so has shown little/zero with regards to unified government though.

I agree, it’s a very poor and damaging government. Let’s hope for better from the next one.

I am talking in the general ideal.

 

[sparkie]

I'm not voting for Labour but given that their victory is inevitable they should

- join the European Single Market.
- fill the potholes.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I know I go on about Germany a lot, but it's not all milk and honey here. I have posted about a developing crisis in the restaurant thread.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Electoral Reform society don't argue for a list PR system (almost nobody does, it's only politicians who don't want to risk direct accountability who think that's a good idea).
...

really? i thought lists were pretty normal in PR systems across Europe. used in EU elections, and Wales, where they had Neil Hamilton (yes that one) represent somewhere for UKIP.