Let's just clear this up!


#1

Hi, I have recently just returned to the forums and my account has changed a lot as well as my views and a few of you asked about it. Well let me start on saying I used to be Clara Oswin Oswald on the forums.

I used to be a Conservative member, and at one point a total laissez-faire capitalist. Since I left, major political events have happened e.g. brexit… Anyhow in that time my dominant economic policy has changed to social democracy. I also joined the Lib Dems during the EU referendum as they were the only party that were unapologetically pro-EU looking to me.

Some of you may say why didn’t you just go straight to Labour? They’re obviously more electable? Well no. That attitude would mean no minority party would ever win. Also, Labour are becoming less electable by each day and as Tim Farron once said, (now Corbyn is leader) the centre ground void is open. This along with the pro-EU stance the party has could be the perfect combination for a Lib Dem fightback (membership surged after the EU ref), which is just one reason why I joined the Lib Dems.

So basically I left the Tory party because I was dismayed at their policies as a party (I couldn’t lie to myself any longer) and also because I’m a social democrat.

Just to clean that up, and oh I am more socially progressive.

:stuck_out_tongue:


#2

Didn’t realize you were clara, welcome back


#3

thankyouu


#4

Honestly I am not surprised to see you give up on your Laissez-faire Capitalist Ideology, I honestly didn’t think you supported it. At the time I would have described you as; ‘all over the place’.

At least you’re in a party you support, even if it is the Liberal Democrats.


#5

In FPTP only the Conservatives and Labour will ever win, I’m afraid. With the odd exception like 2010, we live in a de facto two-party system, and will continue to do so until we move a proportional voting system. That is, if Labour don’t split after the next General Election.


#6

Sadly this is the case. FPTP sucks balls, isn’t representative at all.


#7

The system and public views means that no minority party will ever win.

The UK is unique because the two major parties cover most of the dominant politically popular policies.
The Netherlands has a multi party system because each party is pretty unique and campaigns on very few points. The same applies to France, although their major parties are a bit broader.

Canada is a good example of a three-way system. All three parties are unique. Canada has many voter demographics that fit to each party. Manual labour, farmers, East vs. West, Urban vs. Rural … in the UK it’s almost unanimously Historical voting of the family and wealth. I have a feeling very few vote based on policies, except when it comes to radical wings where having one policy attracts Green/BNP/UKIP voters if it’s enough in one direction.

In the UK, Lib Dem policies are gobbled up by Conservatives and Labour one way or another, so it’s pointless to pretend that they have a chance of winning because of public perception and because our system basically restricts us to very few parties (even though Canada shows it’s possible with more).

Lib Dems are basically a useless party with a name associated with sitting on the fence.
I distinctly remember their campaign calls last May.
“Borrow less than Labour, cut less than Tories”
“Conservative economic policies, Labour social policies”
“With the backbone of the Tories and the heart of Labour”

Incredibly unoriginal party with shit marketing and zero prospects for the future. Sitting in the middle and cherrypicking policies that you think attracts most people is not a party plan that gets you seats. The Lib Dems are basically shitting in the face of the belief that “elections are won in the centre” because they don’t know how to do it.


#8

In terms of policy, is there honestly that much difference between the New Democrats and Liberals?

They’ve had more power in the last 6 years that Labour have…


#9

That’s the biggest crap I’ve ever heard. The Labour party first won its seats in the 1900 General Election, where the Liberals were the second largest party. After 5 General Elections they were the Second Largest party, defeating the Liberals. Back then you would have said “Oh, only the Liberals or the Conservatives can win”… evidently not.


#10

You’re deluding yourself completely if you think that, unless one of the two parties splits or there’s a voting system change, we’re going to have anything other than a Labour/Conservative PM in the foreseeable future. To succeed in FPTP, you need to build up a homeland - for Labour this is London, industrial areas in the North and it used to be Scotland; for the Conservatives this is often wealthy countryside areas in Central, Eastern and Southern England. It takes decades and decades to build up a homeland of any meaning at all in this system, and the Lib Dems/UKIP are nowhere near doing that. It’s ridiculous to deny that FPTP gives us a de facto two party system - need I remind you that at the last election the Conservatives were awarded a “majority” with less than 37% of the vote, while UKIP got 13% of the vote but only 1 out of 650 seats. Honestly, it’s ridiculous - what’s even more ridiculous is that people pretend this is democracy…


#11

You said it was “impossible” for any other party to be elected, which isn’t true. I was simply trying to dispute your original post. I’m not denying we don’t have a “de facto” two party state. Who knows, however, if Jeremy stays on and the Labour party doesn’t split/or does, we could see a massive Liberal/UKIP surge.

But it is democracy. Let’s be honest. You aren’t forced to vote for anything, but people think they have to vote Conservative or Labour. It’s down to the parties to prove that wrong and build up support, not for the government to step in and give them a hand.


#12

Perhaps it’s theoretically possible, but it’s not going to happen…

Even if we do, it’d take one hell of a surge for them to have a significant effect on the House of Commons (UKIP in particular).

It honestly isn’t democracy. It’s a system where getting less than 37% of the vote earns you a majority, and where 13% of the electorate can just be ignored. It’s a system where literally millions of people have no democratic power at all. I live in probably the most Conservative constituency in the country, and thus every single person on my street has no electoral power or relevance whatsoever.

“Democracy” means every member of the country has the ability to cast a vote, and that each vote has equal power. FPTP most definitely isn’t democratic by that definition.


#13

What do you think about Switzerland’s system? @snoge as well


#14

I’ll read up on it now. I’m a big fan of the New Zealand voting system, though.


#15

I think direct democracy for constitutional changes is perfect, but for smaller laws not so.


#16

I meant their council thingy with all major parties having a roundtable representation


#17

I think anything that utilises votes is the best. People who voted for a certain, less popular thing shouldn’t just be ignored. Instead, they should have a little or bigger say on things depending on their seat numbers/popular vote.


#18

OK, so the National Council and the frequent referenda seem like good institutions to keep the people connected with politics, but I’m pretty strongly opposed to direct/semi-direct democracy. For me, the benefit of democracy is to give the people some control over the government to prevent it from becoming despotic - if a country achieves that function, through democracy or otherwise, then no more democracy is needed. So, a lower house elected by proportional representative democracy is all that’s necessary - the rest of the actions of the state can be directed by adherence to an inalienable constitution and a certain amount of technocracy.


#19

Of course it will strengthen the Conservative vote and seats, but we could see a destroyed Labour. With the public losing confidence in the Labour vote, then more people will be switching. So as they lose 2020, by such high margins, people will have distrust in Labour and people who voted Labour in 2020 may vote others in 2025. It’s not going to happen in one GE, it takes time - just like how Labour got into power.

That’s not entirely true. When people don’t exercise their vote, then we have this idea that my vote means nothing. Even though the people that don’t vote can completely change the outcome, people think that their vote wont matter. Again - this is down to political parties to encourage voting and not for the government to swing things.

Yes, and people voted no to AV. Ergo, they voted for this.


#20

[quote=“John, post:19, topic:105941”]
Of course it will strengthen the Conservative vote and seats, but we could see a destroyed Labour. With the public losing confidence in the Labour vote, then more people will be switching. So as they lose 2020, by such high margins, people will have distrust in Labour and people who voted Labour in 2020 may vote others in 2025. It’s not going to happen in one GE, it takes time - just like how Labour got into power. [/quote]

But why should it take time? Why is that acceptable in a “democracy”? Why should the 13% of the electorate have to wait for decades just for their views to be anything like fairly represented?

Comes back to my earlier point - it’s not a democracy unless all votes have equal power. The votes of my family members in my constituency are meaningless - compare this to people in marginals who have a disproportionately high amount of influence over which government my family are going to be forced to accept.

AV isn’t a proportional voting system at all; it’s just very slightly more democratic than FPTP. The choice in that referendum was to pick one out of two very, very flawed systems, and as a result people voted for the status quo - we’ve yet to have been given the option of real electoral system change.