[arista]

Cry Away.

[arista]

Dig Away.

[arista]

Back in 2007

[arista]

[Sir Keir's wife Victoria could also be seen
wiping away tears during parts of the show]


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ken-drugs.html

ITV1HD 9:30PM Tuesday 1 June

[joeysteele]

I've thought again.
I'm still not on board this was a wise move.

It maybe can't do any further harm but knowing Morgan's style, there'll be a moment which gets picked up on.
More likely negatively.

[bitontheslide]

reading the article, i'm not sure it was smart. He was locked in to a no win situation on the drugs and sexual partners topics and if people manage to get through life without having personal family tragedy they are the exception rather than the rule.

Obviously, it very much depends on how its all edited, but I can predict the outcome now

[Livia]

He's just another unelectable Labour leader. I hope they sort themselves out before the next election or the Tories will be running virtually unopposed. Again.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

reading the article, i'm not sure it was smart. He was locked in to a no win situation on the drugs and sexual partners topics and if people manage to get through life without having personal family tragedy they are the exception rather than the rule.

Obviously, it very much depends on how its all edited, but I can predict the outcome now

I've just been hearing about a drugs segment bots.

As you say depending on the edit, it's a wait and see.
However, that's one of those questioning lines which if a straight answer isn't given.
Then that is seized on by the media normally.

I am more edgy about this interview and the content of it.

I wouldn't be bothered if Labour have to seek a new leader myself.
I haven't wanted the last 3 who became so.
However, it's not a new leader that will likely help us now.

It's a new agenda, a new idea , a new narrative.
Which I may be proved wrong if it was followed, however I think PR for local and general elections could start that new agenda and grow considerably as to support for it too.

I already believe myself way over 50% of voters and the electorate who don't vote too, are believers of a fairer and more representative electoral voting system now.
Which would put the Con party into total panic in my view.
The ONLY party in the UK who'd NEVER ever want it

[bitontheslide]

i'm not a fan of PR at all, and I think it would be disastrous if it were implemented. The situation we had with May and Brexit is but a small taster of how it would be. Nothing would ever get done. Some may say that a good thing of course but it gives power to fringe politics like we had with the northern irish group. That would be common place. So, no, i am certainly not a fan

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

i'm not a fan of PR at all, and I think it would be disastrous if it were implemented. The situation we had with May and Brexit is but a small taster of how it would be. Nothing would ever get done. Some may say that a good thing of course but it gives power to fringe politics like we had with the northern irish group. That would be common place. So, no, i am certainly not a fan

Well for me and I believe the majority of voters too.
The fact we have an electoral system where in 2005 Labour could be in absolute power, only getting around 36% of the vote with a strong overall majority.
Where the last election gave the Cons around 43% of the vote with 57% of voters voting against them.
Yet taking power with an 80 overall majority against the desire of 57% of the electorate.
I find that the most Undemocratic representation possible and obscene.

If PR was the norm and it's used in part and in full, for the Scottish, Welsh and Irish elections.
For Mayoral elections.
Also the Police and Crime Commissioner elections.

It's ridiculous we don't have it for all elections now and I believe Parties would have to work and be forced to moderate and work together if it was the norm.

Never again would there be a majority Labour government, also too however never a majority Con one either.

The only people I think, sorry for this, who would be against PR, are likely Con hard-liners, who agree with their party in government particularly, being able to dismiss and ride over the majority of voters who voted against them.
That is ridiculous.
Outdated and plain wrong in my view.

Only once since 1900 has a single party got over 50% of the votes cast,
In 1906 the Cons took 50.2%

Since 1974.
The 2 main parties have only taken between around 66% to 78% of the votes cast.
Leaving near a quarter or even more of voters with no real representation whatsoever in effect.
That should be wrong in any election and no Party should have absolute power on those figures.

Since 1974, only in 2017 did the 2 Main Parties get on or above 80% of the votes cast.
That resulted in a Hung parliament.
That was correct as a result.

I won't be surprised that mainly hard-line Con supporters aren't in favour of PR, of course they're not.
They'd be in near panic.

Every other single party is in favour of it, if Labour came to embrace it too.
From Independent candidates through to UKIP/Brexit/ Reform Party, whatever it's called now, even through to the usually the UnDemocratic Unionist Party too.

Only the Cons not really.
Labour should clear it's fear on PR at the top of the party and work to align from the centre to the left.
Leaving the Cons with their heartless hard-line extreme right wing stance out where it ought to be if voting was more representative, out in the freezing cold.
It may even force the Cons to find a heart again rather than a robotic machine beating in its chest.

[joeysteele]

Furthermore, I also firmly believe had PR been the norm.
For this pandemic, a then like National government, with all the Parties elected to Westminster, carrying with them the authority of the massive majority of voters with them.
Rather than just this hapless Con government solely doing what it liked.

I think, the pandemic would have had clearer messaging and maybe less disastrous results of losses of life.

Rather than a government elected with only around 4+ out of every 10 voters.
Solely deciding policy on it.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Livia

He's just another unelectable Labour leader. I hope they sort themselves out before the next election or the Tories will be running virtually unopposed. Again.

Labour are hoping this will
bring some round to vote for him

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by arista

Labour are hoping this will
bring some round to vote for him

I really doubt it actually will arista.
I'm actually not that sure either, we the members or even many MPs think this the best move by him.

[arista]

[arista]

Live on LBC Radio
Debating Keir.

Andrew Castle.


https://www.lbc.co.uk/

Free Live Feed link

[Oliver_W]

I don't see how PR could work with our parliamentary system - we vote for an MP to represent our constituency, not who we want to be PM. If the number of seats were to be allocated based on nation wide votes, how would they guarantee a seat gets the party the area voted for?

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

I don't see how PR could work with our parliamentary system - we vote for an MP to represent our constituency, not who we want to be PM. If the number of seats were to be allocated based on nation wide votes, how would they guarantee a seat gets the party the area voted for?

How about a citizen’s parliament then eventually get rid of all politicians ?

https://www.citizensparliament.uk/manifesto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Zizu

How about a citizen’s parliament then eventually get rid of all politicians ?

https://www.citizensparliament.uk/manifesto


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ha! I actually wouldn't hate it tbh

[bitontheslide]

citizens parliament is what we have now

We are all citizens, if what is being suggested is that parliament become apolitical, well that's just not possible

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

citizens parliament is what we have now

We are all citizens, if what is being suggested is that parliament become apolitical, well that's just not possible

If the second chamber was civilians, voting to approve laws being put through, that'd make things even more democratic

[bitontheslide]

i'm not a fan of hereditary peers, i think thats totally wrong. I also don't like how the party in government creates a load of peers to ensure their bills get through, so there is room for improvement. Also, the house of lords can't stop a bill from becoming law, they can only request a limited number of amendments after which they are just ignored.

Personally, i think we only need 1 elected body. That's why they were elected after all. I'm not sure that the lords performs a useful function

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

citizens parliament is what we have now



We are all citizens, if what is being suggested is that parliament become apolitical, well that's just not possible

I was thinking morally incorruptible citizens..


It’s no secret that I’d do away with every politician and get rid of the house lords ..

Things could hardly be any worse whatever we replaced them with


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

If the second chamber was civilians, voting to approve laws being put through, that'd make things even more democratic

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by Zizu

I was thinking morally incorruptible citizens..


It’s no secret that I’d do away with every politician and get rid of the house lords ..

Things could hardly be any worse whatever we replaced them with


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

how do you determine someone is morally incorruptible? Not possible

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

how do you determine someone is morally incorruptible? Not possible

Start with expelling all existing politicians and all the House of Lords then go from there .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro