Hopefully Burnham takes over the leadership at some point. The only way that a Labour leader is going to stand a chance is if they're identifiable as a leader. Starmer and Miliband have both been non entities. Corbyn had the "celebrity" factor but was unfortunately too divisive and a poor communicator.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Welsh Labour vows to be ‘radical and ambitious’ following surprising result
Radical and Ambitious. Now there's an idea.
Radical and Ambitious. Now there's an idea.
Don't know much, which is the better explanation?
I’d love to know Binface’s second round total.
i know Khan won the first round in any case, but the two rounds really favours the incumbent.
i know Khan won the first round in any case, but the two rounds really favours the incumbent.
Khan had the issue of a lower turnout to deal with this time around as opposed to four years ago. The two rounds is a really good idea, allows people to show their support to a lesser party and not feel like they are wasting a potential vote.
there are positives and negatives.
When I entered the polling station, I wasn’t aware it was two votes - hence my second vote going to Binface.
as I said he won because he got the most votes in the first round, but most people wouldn’t have known who to vote for in the second round (my assumption obviously). Whether it favours someone or not, I suppose is a red herring. It’s not a system I like.
The main negative is that a lot of people don't seem to know how it works. I don't think it favours the incumbent. it did favour Khan here but that is because the voters of other parties such as Greens, Lib Dems and Binface would probably vote for Khan over Bailey.
In your case you would have been better off voting for Binface first and then either one of Khan or Bailey as only those two's second votes would have mattered.
I would say it's not a great system but it's a better one than we have.
This just about sums it up:
Was there a specific reason the Mayoral elections were out of sync with the local elections? I.e should have been held last year. I assume the terms will now run in parallel with no return to a staggered term?
All elections were postponed last year and delayed until this year due to Covid. Presume the next ones will be 3 years from now to get back in sync although not sure.
It’s lazy reporting such as this which is the problem, I mean who referred to this as a hat-trick:
No comment.
Boris Johnson invites Nicola Sturgeon to a ‘Save the Union’ summit
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...r-keir-starmer-scotland-holyrood-b934042.html
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...r-keir-starmer-scotland-holyrood-b934042.html
i don’t know the answer, but I would have assumed they were 4 year terms, unless there were specific deacons for mayor and council elections to be staggered. It presumably makes sense for them to be held at the same time, as it may increase turnout and decrease costs.
...Really? You honestly believe that Labour has listened to its grass roots?
Yes, of course, everyone can outline the problems but so far (Boris included) haven't come up with any solutions. Many of Corbyn's apparent solutions would not pass muster in a country still predominantly Conservative (with a small 'c'). It paid no attention to the aspirations of ordinary people, in-situ, it basically was an exercise in talking down to people, "Jeremy knows best".
What most people who (previously) voted Labour wanted was something that addressed their specific problems even, if it was over time, they did not want some all singing all dancing solution, so called quick solution (short term schemes) that supposedly affected everybody but usually in the end helped nobody; they had years of this kind of 'mend and make do' from local Councils/Authorities that had been Labour since 'Adam was a lad'.
I have no doubt that many Labour politicians, especially local councillors 'hearts are in the right place' but collectively they lack ingenuity, and an economic vision that recognises and includes for ordinary people to 'get on in life', people whose aspirations are limited by many factors, some outside their own control. They needed some one to come along and try to 'level up' (now where have we heard that lately). This is not about social mixing or social advancement or fairness even, its about giving somebody a fighting chance. Unfortunately for Labour in the past Margaret Thatcher understood this only too well and used it to her and the Tory party's benefit, she did it remarkably in many areas and stole (not borrowed) the hearts/minds of traditional labour voters, even though her general political disposition was in another direction.... Boris is about to do the same and in someways he already has!
Labour does have people on board, ordinary wc people who have come through this 'pull myself up by the boots straps', e.g. in Angela Rayner. True Angela may have an accent that many (especially down South) laugh at, she also sometimes doesn't communicate her strengths as well as she might, but her 'life experience' is one the Labour party should study in detail looking for clues as to first off how to recognise people like Angela then work out real plans that such people can access. This isn't just about putting on new job creations schemes via local FE colleges, is about making FE post 16 Education, front and centre.
I am not sure what the current financing of Post 16 education is like, but for many years 2/3rds of the nations Post 16 budget went into Higher (University) Education, but only one third of the Post 16 students were in the Higher University Education sector. At the same time only 1/3 of the budget went into Further Education, but 2/3rds of the Post 16 students were enrolled in FE!
Ironically the Conservatives have the best record over time of putting resources into FE!
Its not a question of the Tories 'stealing Labour's clothes', Labour never had any clothes of this design, what it is, is a Tory excise in showing Labour they know more about WC aspirations than Sir Keir and his party does.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-voting-system-after-labour-mayoral-victories
Government to change English voting system after Labour mayoral victories
Switch to first past the post could make it easier for Conservatives to win future mayoral contests
winning mentality
Government to change English voting system after Labour mayoral victories
Switch to first past the post could make it easier for Conservatives to win future mayoral contests
winning mentality
years of lying politicians indulged by a compliant media
to be fair, i think the two vote system is pretty stupid. You should only need to vote for one person/ party.
It's all personal taste I guess, but I think first past the post is fundamentally flawed as it means that people are forced to vote for people who have a chance of winning under FPTP, but they don't necessarily like. This makes it impossible to get away from having two dominant parties which has been an issue in the UK for years.
If the two major candidates are labour and conservatives, but I like (for example) Count Binface it means I can vote for the latter and hope that other people do the same. If that doesn't happen I can put my 2nd vote as my other option out of the big two. First past the post suits the status quo, but that's pretty much all.
Smacks a bit of what’s occurring in my country right now.
You’re focusing on the act of actually voting and not the importance of what each voting system actually brings to the table. Ranked voting is much more representative of a populations wishes and that is exactly what an election is intended to determine.
I voted for Binface as my second choice as well… 1/2 his policies actually make sense!
I suppose ultimately there is no system that makes everyone happy.
One is a vote of support. The other is a vote of intent. However you order them.
Ranked choice voting sees more people get what they want. You’re just wrong, and wholly corrupted by two party politics.
firstly, nothing wrong with different opinions. Therefore it’s not black and and white. You last sentence shows that you can’t have a sensible debate. Well done.
Its not opinion. It really IS that black and white.
‘One vote one choice’ is so painfully stupid to defend. Ranked choice voting is accepted by anyone neutral as the fairest and most accurate method.
It’s ok that you defend your position, but just think about what you’re defending. It’s so silly.
It is an opinion - the real issue I have is the way you approach a discussion.
I honestly don’t care. If you’ve picked soft challenging opinions to this point you clearly need a stronger one.
What is your problem with ranked choice voting?
The point is - it is an opinion. Give a shit what you think. If you hadn’t been such an aggressive an petulant child, we could have discussed it, and maybe I’d even have changed my perspective if your argument had been persuasive.
If you were Boris Johnson when would you call for an election?
No... 100% no... with such a huge majority the risk / reward just does not stack up.
They have still not scrapped the fixed term parliament act either which im sure they will do before they call an election and that would take some parliamentary time... certainly don't think that would go through before the summer resess... so the earliest you would be looking at would be something like a winter election which would seem unlikely given how rare they have been.
I really do wish she had the same energy to go after Boris and the Tory cronyism.
You're the child here. Why do tories always clutch their pearls and disengage so easily?
It’s called an escape hatch.
Republicans & conservatives use them wantonly over here.
Typical examples are a variant of ‘do your own research’ or some version of manufactured outrage pearl clutch / ‘so, you think you’re better than me’ / ‘why don’t you just tell me what to think.’
It’s thought of as a clever obfuscation by the deliverer, but it’s wholly predictable & true to type.
Good word for it, very true.
get a grip. I’m very happy to engage in conversation and discussion in here. When someone, just comes straight in and says you are flat out wrong, and have been corrupted! Then yes it’s going to get anyone’s back up.
you can’t have a discussion with someone when they start off with that. This not me disengaging at all - that’s calling someone out for being a prick.
Righto.