If I were a member of a political party

[Thomas]

I think under FPTP, the chances of the left turning Labour around are substantially greater than the chances of them forming a viable new party which gains any traction whatsoever. Starmer need only be seen to fail on his own terms and it is all there to play for again. What is different this time around is that the left - most of us anyway - have decided not to leave en masse.

And in a hung parliament, Starmer would cave in on his opposition to PR to form a viable government. Power at any cost and for it's own sake is his aim after all. We could well end up with a referendum on it under such circumstances. Then those such as I in the party would campaign hard for it.

its the jam tomorrow argument again isnt it steve?

This poll here from almost a year ago showed three quarters of labour members want pr.

Poll: three quarters of Labour members want Proportional Representation

https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/newsroom-2/2019/12/16/poll-three-quarters-of-labour-members-want-proportional-representation

Starmer promised to look at it and offer polciy on it during his leadership election at the start of this year , and so far , he has done nothing.

When are you labour supporters ever going to learn the jam tomorrow argument is long past its sell by date?

Starmer has had plenty of time to formulate an opinion if not a policy on PR  , and hasnt because the labour leadership have absolutely no intention of killing the goose that lays them the golden egg every election.


In this article here , corbyn and macdonnel similarly ignored the calls for PR. 

Why is the Labour Party machine ignoring members on voting reform?

https://labourlist.org/2018/09/why-is-the-labour-party-machine-ignoring-members-on-voting-reform/

[srb7677]

Listen to him Steve - you know for a fact that Starmer doesn't want PR and you know it will take 30-40 years for the left to get back into power in Labour.

Heck, we might all be dead in 10 years let alone 30-40.

I think under FPTP, the chances of the left turning Labour around are substantially greater than the chances of them forming a viable new party which gains any traction whatsoever. Starmer need only be seen to fail on his own terms and it is all there to play for again. What is different this time around is that the left - most of us anyway - have decided not to leave en masse.

And in a hung parliament, Starmer would cave in on his opposition to PR to form a viable government. Power at any cost and for it's own sake is his aim after all. We could well end up with a referendum on it under such circumstances. Then those such as I in the party would campaign hard for it.

[Thomas]

Listen to him Steve - you know for a fact that Starmer doesn't want PR and you know it will take 30-40 years for the left to get back into power in Labour.

Heck, we might all be dead in 10 years let alone 30-40.

SRB is doing his usual disingenuous pitch.

He bleats incessantly about wanting the world to be a better place for the common man , but wants everyone to channel this universal belief into support for his beloved labour party.

He then paints electoral reform as something viable but unattainable , then tells us we all have to carry on doing the same thing over and over by trusting labour but expecting a different result the next time they are in power.

Its a nonsense argument , especially when he himself admits labour are backsliding towards the very blairism he tells us he despises .

Its what we fondly mock in scotland as  the "jam tomorrow "argument. With labour , the utopia is always just around the corner but never appears when they are in power.

[Borg Refinery]

everyone wants change all the time at every stage in history.

Universal suffrage didnt come about by folk like you sitting with their hands in theri pockets moaning about how reform could never happen........people went out and did something about it.

Listen to him Steve - you know for a fact that Starmer doesn't want PR and you know it will take 30-40 years for the left to get back into power in Labour.

Heck, we might all be dead in 10 years let alone 30-40.

[Thomas]

I want change. But recognise that without electoral reform it is unlikely to be viable.

everyone wants change all the time at every stage in history.

Universal suffrage didnt come about by folk like you sitting with their hands in theri pockets moaning about how reform could never happen........people went out and did something about it.

[srb7677]

I don't totally agree. The Attlee govt, which implemented fundamental changes, won decisively against the odds. Thatcher and Blair too — though they probably did not bring the changes you wanted, despite each being voted in three times.
First past the post has the advantage of allowing voters to know their individual candidates. Admittedly, the current constituencies probably need reforming and possibly their number reducing — say, to 500 or under for the whole UK.
Other PR systems tend to offer party lists arranged in the management's pecking order.
My feeling is that  major economies that operate PR systems operated tend towards either instability or inertia and not necessarily social equity...

I take what you are saying and can see where you are coming from.

But the kind of PR I advocate would retain the constituency link. If you halved the number of seats but had two MPs per seat, one of them could always be the candidate who topped the poll locally, the other could be used to make the end result proportional, with an MP from another party that did particularly well there. Each seat would have two MPs from two different parties, one of whom would have topped the local poll. Something like that.

[patman post]

I want change. But recognise that without electoral reform it is unlikely to be viable.

I don't totally agree. The Attlee govt, which implemented fundamental changes, won decisively against the odds. Thatcher and Blair too — though they probably did not bring the changes you wanted, despite each being voted in three times.
First past the post has the advantage of allowing voters to know their individual candidates. Admittedly, the current constituencies probably need reforming and possibly their number reducing — say, to 500 or under for the whole UK.
Other PR systems tend to offer party lists arranged in the management's pecking order.
My feeling is that  major economies that operate PR systems operated tend towards either instability or inertia and not necessarily social equity...

[srb7677]

Stay and fight it. Or run away into the political wilderness.

This is just a pathetic attempt at justification at your continued contortions twists and turns ate every stage in your denial you are in effect supporting sir keir knight of the realm starmer and his blairites.

No political party in normal circumstance should ever be given tribal undying loyalty. This sort of attitude enabled both labour and tory to put forth career politicians of little to no talent as benchwarmers for the commons over the years , and has given rise to increasingly poor governance of the uk over the decades.

If more of us over the years were prepared to give other parties a chance , and give new parties a hope of getting established rather than writing them off as no hopers and continuing to enable the tired old political system with its two parties , then perhaps politics would be in a better place.

As such  , with attitudes like yours , we are merely going to continue to spiral downwards in political terms with increasingly bad politicians and governance  with your lack of vision and cluelessness and apathy towards change.

I want change. But recognise that without electoral reform it is unlikely to be viable.

[Thomas]

Stay and fight it. Or run away into the political wilderness.

This is just a pathetic attempt at justification at your continued contortions twists and turns ate every stage in your denial you are in effect supporting sir keir knight of the realm starmer and his blairites.

No political party in normal circumstance should ever be given tribal undying loyalty. This sort of attitude enabled both labour and tory to put forth career politicians of little to no talent as benchwarmers for the commons over the years , and has given rise to increasingly poor governance of the uk over the decades.

If more of us over the years were prepared to give other parties a chance , and give new parties a hope of getting established rather than writing them off as no hopers and continuing to enable the tired old political system with its two parties , then perhaps politics would be in a better place.

As such  , with attitudes like yours , we are merely going to continue to spiral downwards in political terms with increasingly bad politicians and governance  with your lack of vision and cluelessness and apathy towards change.

[srb7677]

I am not sure mainstream parties ever actually relied on the money handed to them by an individual member.

Those in government receive huge subsidy at public expense (see the BBC radio documentary "the political club") and those vested interests and wealthy influencers wish to see in power receive huge donations

The Tories have always relied on wealthy donors. Labour have traditionally relied heavily upon the unions, but the Blairite factions tend to go for wealthy donors too in return for not increasing their taxes. Under Starmer we are likely to see more of that.

I despise such sell outs but as a union member my own contributions to the party in subs are utterly minimal, no more than a couple of quid a month. The membership this buys me also buys me the right to vote in all internal party elections, which is ultimately the only way people like me can come together in the party to fight for what we believe in. And if necessary - as is looking increasingly needed - bring Starmer and the Blairites down.

As a member of a party you can never expect to agree with everything, but if you have a leadership that you feel is moving in the wrong direction you have only two choices. Stay and fight it. Or run away into the political wilderness.

I used to contribute in addition to my basic subs, sums of money for the local and the national party as monthly debits. I have cancelled all such support and now only contribute to ad hoc causes I believe in.

[johnofgwent]

I am not sure mainstream parties ever actually relied on the money handed to them by an individual member.

Those in government receive huge subsidy at public expense (see the BBC radio documentary "the political club") and those vested interests and wealthy influencers wish to see in power receive huge donations

[Barry]

If I were a member of a political party and actually paying for the privelege, if that party was not acting in a manner that I agreed with.
I would cancel my subscription and never pay in another penny.

The only party I  have ever supported financially was the Brexit Party, which was for "a time such as this".

I doubt that I shall ever pay in to a party again, but those that do, really do need to examine if that party represents their position.
For example, if the Tories decided to re-join the EU, I would never vote for them.
If Labour became strongly anti EU and centrist, (Blairite) they would certainly be given my consideration.

You pay your money
You take your choice
Whatever you need
Whatever you use
Whatever you win
Whatever you lose. Come On

Whatever you want
No values, no values, no values at all

The city shark is at the dark end of the alleyway
You pays your money and you takes your choice