[Vampyr]

I would love to see Labour and the Conservatives win less than 50% of the vote combined, and a coalition formed of the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru, SNP etc.

A somewhat unrelated question,,, why is England the only constituent part of the UK which does not have its own Parliament?

[The_Badger]

What we need now is strong government, fairness, direction, and real leadership....mmmm. I truly despair. I have become so disillusioned with politics in this country. (And to believe that the Americans thought they had a bad deal with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump...)

[cloa513]

The_Badger, on 2017-May-27, 02:50, said:

strong government, fairness, direction, and real leadership

What does those words mean?
I'd argue you need the opposite of direction- parties should not deciding how to solve any of the country's problems before they get into power. Start only with a set of value but no pre-prescribed decisions of what to do. Apparently people really want terrible solutions- that is guaranteed when you don't consider all the evidence and all the possible solutions. Give solution forming a full six months- modern western government have proven they could shutdown for months and it would no difference.

[The_Badger]

cloa513, on 2017-May-27, 05:04, said:

What does those words mean?
I'd argue you need the opposite of direction- parties should not deciding how to solve any of the country's problems before they get into power. Start only with a set of value but no pre-prescribed decisions of what to do. Apparently people really want terrible solutions- that is guaranteed when you don't consider all the evidence and all the possible solutions. Give solution forming a full six months- modern western government have proven they could shutdown for months and it would no difference.

I agree entirely with what you say. When I used the word 'direction' it was in the sense of 'progressiveness'. Political parties are all well and good, but there is so much infighting amongst them, and so many different parties, and so many different views, that the result is total chaos.

That's why Vampyr's post made me smile because an amalgam of all the smaller British parties, many at each other's throats, is now how I perceive politics. Politicians are supposed to represent the people, but how many politicians can we actually trust nowadays?

[steve2005]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-26, 20:11, said:

I would love to see Labour and the Conservatives win less than 50% of the vote combined, and a coalition formed of the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru, SNP etc.

A somewhat unrelated question,,, why is England the only constituent part of the UK which does not have its own Parliament?

Because England doesn't resent being ruled by an uncaring Empire in London.

[Vampyr]

steve2005, on 2017-May-27, 14:10, said:

Because England doesn't resent being ruled by an uncaring Empire in London.

Would you feel differently if the UK Parliament met in Cardiff? The fact that the UK Parliament physically located in England is not a reason the English should not have Home Rule as everyone else does.

[Al_U_Card]

Institutions take even longer than people to change with the times. Their self-referential nature (conservatives or progressives etc) limits their field of action. Perhaps electing talented, unaffiliated individuals and have them vote their "conscience" (as approved by their election) might provide.more flexibility and a more.realistic representation of the will of the people.

As it stands now, we just elect a group that provides an interface.between the masses and the oligarchs. A simple case six of one, half a dozen of the other... ;(

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-26, 20:11, said:

I would love to see Labour and the Conservatives win less than 50% of the vote combined, and a coalition formed of the Lib Dems, Greens, UKIP, Sinn Féin, Plaid Cymru, SNP etc.

No, this could not happen at the moment. If it ever did then it would be great as we would surely finally get a permanent change to a fairer election system (my preference is still a German-style system complete with 5% hurdle).

Vampyr, on 2017-May-26, 20:11, said:

A somewhat unrelated question,,, why is England the only constituent part of the UK which does not have its own Parliament?

This is basically the West Lothian question and has been around for a while. A rather old Liberal policy is to set up Regional Assemblies for the different areas of Englnd with devolved powers similar to that of the Welsh Assembly. If it were popular enough then I am sure it would get a prominent position in the LibDem manifesto so it is fair to assume that there is no drive for it in England. I am not sure what your experiences are but mine are that local government is at least as corrupt and poorly managed as central government, often more so. Add to that the additional costs involved at a time when every party is looking to find cuts in the budget wherever they can and you can perhaps understand why such proposals are on the back burner.

If you genuinely believe in devolution though and want to make it your top election issue then the LibDems are your best choice. If you live in a Con-Lab marginal though, or worse, a safe seat for any of the parties, then you may as well give up on any notion of your vote having any meaningful impact in this area. For the safe seat, you can give up on vote having any meaning at all; you are in fact invisible to the political parties. Which brings us back to the case for electoral reform...

[helene_t]

in Denmark we have a Danish parliament and then Greenland and Faroe Islands have their own. There is no parliament for "Denmark except for fi and gl"

[Vampyr]

Zelandakh, on 2017-May-29, 08:37, said:

If you genuinely believe in devolution though and want to make it your top election issue then the LibDems are your best choice. If you live in a Con-Lab marginal though, or worse, a safe seat for any of the parties, then you may as well give up on any notion of your vote having any meaningful impact in this area. For the safe seat, you can give up on vote having any meaning at all; you are in fact invisible to the political parties. Which brings us back to the case for electoral reform...

I hink that the LibDems are the best choice for a lot of reasons,

Our former MP was LibDem, but now it is a safe Labour seat,

[Vampyr]

Well, we all know by now not to trust polls. But I choose to believe the data that Labour are shortening dramatically, and I am not convinced that May can form a coalition. So we may be saved from 5 disaster our years under her. One can but hope.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-31, 05:20, said:

Well, we all know by now not to trust polls. But I choose to believe the data that Labour are shortening dramatically, and I am not convinced that May can form a coalition. So we may be saved from 5 disaster our years under her. One can but hope.

A bit of perspective, you think 5 years under Corbyn would be better ? I really don't want to go back to 20%+ inflation and huge interest rates. There is no good option here.

A dilemma a friend of mine proposed, Corbyn has to decide whether to make a coalition with the SNP, whose price is a referendum. The Scots might vote out leaving a permanent Tory majority.

[shyams]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-May-31, 06:10, said:

A dilemma a friend of mine proposed, Corbyn has to decide whether to make a coalition with the SNP, whose price is a referendum. The Scots might vote out leaving a permanent Tory majority.

Barely a tough decision. Corbyn will take any deal as long as he gets to be Prime Minister; even if such a deal means bidding adios to Scotland in the long run.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-May-31, 06:10, said:

A bit of perspective, you think 5 years under Corbyn would be better ? I really don't want to go back to 20%+ inflation and huge interest rates. There is no good option here.

No, there isn't. If the LibDems weren't sputtering along on life support, I think that they would be really good. But they are not an option. I am not thrilled with a 70s-style socialist, but I definitely don't want Theresa May's Brexit. Or any of her other policies.

Quote

A dilemma a friend of mine proposed, Corbyn has to decide whether to make a coalition with the SNP, whose price is a referendum. The Scots might vote out leaving a permanent Tory majority.

Horrific. Now I understand why and am glad we don't have an English Parliament. I still don't think the Scots would go, though.

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-31, 09:38, said:

Horrific. Now I understand why and am glad we don't have an English Parliament. I still don't think the Scots would go, though.

Then you severely underestimate the depth of feeling up there. If there were a referendum tomorrow the result would not really be in doubt. Many feel duped by Project Fear and the false promises that came in the Westminster panic in the final days of the campaign. Chances were already slim that they would be duped again; after the Brexit vote there is just no way a "Stay" campaign is going to get the job done. A referendum would mean the break-up of the Union and all of the parties involved know this very well.

[Cyberyeti]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-31, 09:38, said:

No, there isn't. If the LibDems weren't sputtering along on life support, I think that they would be really good. But they are not an option. I am not thrilled with a 70s-style socialist, but I definitely don't want Theresa May's Brexit. Or any of her other policies.

I would vote Lib Dem if they weren't led by Farron.

I have 2 beefs with him:

He's an evangelical Christian who I suspect will try to force his religious beliefs on others

His Brexit strategy is fundamentally dishonest. His wish for a referendum when the terms were known would just cause Europe to offer less than nothing in the knowledge that they won't get called on it and the Brits would have to vote to stay in (which is what he really wants). At least May warning that no deal is better a bad deal should encourage some sort of offer as German business (and IG metall) would hate there to be no deal.

[Vampyr]

I can't believe Labour are still so long after the debate! Why are the Conservatives still heavily odds-on?

[Zelandakh]

Vampyr, on 2017-May-31, 18:36, said:

I can't believe Labour are still so long after the debate! Why are the Conservatives still heavily odds-on?

For the same reason that noone discusses the merits of Michael Foot's term as PM perhaps?

[helene_t]

shyams, on 2017-May-31, 09:16, said:

Barely a tough decision. Corbyn will take any deal as long as he gets to be Prime Minister; even if such a deal means bidding adios to Scotland in the long run.

I don't think so. unlike certain other politicians he seems to stand by his principles rather than power for the sake of power. Which is btw a problem because as a pm he would have troubles making the necessary compromises.

Not saying he wouldn't agree for a Scottish referendum.

[Vampyr]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-May-31, 13:37, said:

He's an evangelical Christian who I suspect will try to force his religious beliefs on others

Do you really think so? Has his voting eg for marriage equality and against greater regulations on gambling been an elaborate front, with the plan being to reveal his true colours only when elected PM?

Quote

His Brexit strategy is fundamentally dishonest. His wish for a referendum when the terms were known would just cause Europe to offer less than nothing in the knowledge that they won't get called on it and the Brits would have to vote to stay in (which is what he really wants). At least May warning that no deal is better a bad deal should encourage some sort of offer as German business (and IG metall) would hate there to be no deal.

I just wonder if people are starting to realise that they are better off in the EU. I mean, it is pretty bad, but the alternative may end up being worse.

Being a significant net contributor and giving up a lot of sovereignty even on purely internal matters seems like an awful deal, but if the economy has benefited more than the net contributions, then it might be better to stay in and try to negotiate things like protection of fisheries and protectionism preventing trade deals outside the EU. And it just might be better to be in a bigger political unit so as not to be bullied by Donald Trump, or left vulnerable when he decides not to protect his supposed allies from his dictator buddies.