To summarise:

It’s my local pub. I used to drink in there. The regulars are UKIP voting (now Boris-voting) racists. I’d had enough of it one evening and informed them that I had grown weary of their racism. I may not have worded it as politely as that. I no longer drink there.

That’s it

For some reason, that I find unfathomable, our resident leftie contingent are absolutely obsessed with the place. It seems to have become a microcosm of society.

At some point I’m going to take Ernie for a pint there. It’ll be like a tour of a stately home or a famous battlefield. I may start doing coach trips

I may start doing coach trips

I’m in, where do I book? There had better be some Monty Python themed stuff going on in the coach otherwise I will be disappointed.

I promise you a veritable smorgasbord of tired cliches

Why are you still going on about the racist pub you used to drink in binners?

I’m not. Everyone else is. I find the constant fascination with and references back to it somewhat mystifying.

Would you like an update on the ongoing bowling green/beer garden situation?

FPTP is absolutely brilliant.

You simultaneously vote for an individual to represent you in parliament and whatever the party this individual represents says in it’s manifesto and whatever the leader of the party this individual represents says after the election.

Even if all three directly contradict each other.

Not only that, if the party that wins and the main opposition party happen to agree on anything, the PM can turn around and say ‘80% of the country voted for this policy’ as May said about triggering Article 50.

And now that Labour have decided to become anti-immigrant, after the next election when the Tory policy is to gather up immigrants, put them on rafts, and tow them into the middle of the English channel, BoJo can simply turn around and say, ‘Well, this is what 80% of the population voted for.’

So sure, feel free to vote Labour. Just remember you are also voting to support Tory policies.

It’s all pick and mix though… everyone voted at the last election for a party that was committed to a minimum foreign aid budget based on proportion of GDP. Everyone… Tory voters, Labour voters, SNP voters, LibDem voters, Green voters…actually, the only exception was the Brexit Party voters. Anyway, every single MP in parliament stood on that commitment, yet the government still dumped (ahem, suspended) it, because they think it’s popular.

It makes no odds what the Labour manifesto policy was, government policy isn’t based on that (or indeed the ruling party’s own manifesto policies if they are inconvenient). General elections are about electing your MP. The party with the most MPs supporting their leader gets to form the government. While enough MPs keep supporting them, they can do what the hell they want, ’till we get to elect an MP again.

Ah good old ‘pub racism’. It’s that type that’s really flourished with Boris at the helm.

It makes no odds what the Labour manifesto policy was, government policy isn’t based on that (or indeed the ruling party’s own manifesto policies if they are inconvenient).

No, but it gives them cover.

That’s the problem with Labour making the decision to become an anti-immigrant party. It might make them more electable (although thankfully it doesn’t seem to be paying off so far) but it also allows the Tories to say, ‘80% of the population voted for parties hostile to immigrants’.

You have to look closely at the manifesto you are actually voting for.

FPTP is absolutely brilliant.

Those things you identify are not the result of FPTP, but the result of representative democracy and a billionaire owned media establishment. Even under PR we’d have MPs and parties doing stuff that isn’t in their manifestos and spinning issues to claim support for things which doesn’t exist. If you want to get rid of this you need to fundamentally change the democrattic system to remove the power of MPs to do what they want once elected.

 you need to fundamentally change the democratic system to remove the power of MPs to do what they want once elected.

That sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.

Those things you identify are not the result of FPTP, but the result of representative democracy and a billionaire owned media establishment.

The problem with FPTP is that it allows a party who a minority of the population voted for to do whatever the hell they want.

If the democratic system used were more representative then compromises would have to be made in every decision. It means it’s more difficult to ‘get things done’ if there is a lack of consensus but that is a very very good thing.

That sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.

Having the ability to recall them say with a two thirds majority might not be such a bad thing.

That sounds like a spectacularly bad idea.

MPs have far too much power. Once elected they can effectively do what they like with almost no accountability. Many of them do second jobs and lobby ministers on behalf of corporate interests. I see very little downside to limiting and making the exercise of their power more transparent and accountable to their constituents. TBF I should have said ‘reduce’ their power not ‘remove’ but you get the point.

Having the ability to recall them say with a two thirds majority might not be such a bad thing.

I’d add having citizens assemblies setup to oversee their activities and potentially validation of their parliamentary votes if they differ from their stated manifesto commitments. We need a less representative and more delegatory system where MPs carry out the wishes of their constituents rather than deciding what is in their best interests. Things like the Iraq war would never have happened if something like this was in place.

For some reason, that I find unfathomable, our resident leftie contingent are absolutely obsessed with the place.

I was going to say that for some unfathomable reason you don’t want to talk about Starmer on a thread about Starmer, despite your huge input binners.

Then I realised that I didn’t have to go many fathoms deep to figure out why.

There really isn’t much to talk about – he is utterly uninspiring, bereft of any personality, and devoid of any vision for Britain.

As someone who so enthusiastically backed Starmer he must quite frankly be a huge embarrassment to you binners.

Anyway in an attempt to vaguely back on topic what do think about the Guardian’s claim that Boris Johnson is pursuing “leftwing” policies which he’s pinched from Ed Miliband? Should Starmer be supporting these leftwing Tory policies?

Obviously it’s true as it’s in the Guardian. And it must come as a huge relief to you to hear that not everything about Boris Johnson is bad. I know that your opinion of him had previously been very low.

I see very little downside to limiting and making the exercise of their power more transparent and accountable to their constituents.

So if you remove the power of MPs to change their minds…What then happens then if a manifesto item/promise/hope proves to be too costly or won’t solve the issue its trying to, or has unintended consequences, or is just bad law? They have to implement it?

What if a party promises to bring back capital punishment? (Priti Patel is very much pro, as are many of the current crop of Tories, and I’ve not doubt it would be popular if included in a manifesto)

Anyway in an attempt to vaguely back on topic what do think about the Guardian’s claim that Boris Johnson is pursuing “leftwing” policies which he’s pinched from Ed Miliband?

Doesn’t this just mean that we’ve come full circle?

I seem to recall that at the time Ed Milliband’s manifesto was criticised for being too timid and basically Just ‘Tory-lite’ (to use a term I know you all love).

So it can’t come as any great shock to anyone that (some of…)Boris’s agenda looks quite similar, can it?

It’s not really the point though, is it? Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. The policies he nicked off Ed represent a small/tiny proportion of the overall direction of travel, and as with most Tory spending promises: I’ll believe it when I see it

The main thrust of what the Tory’s are presently doing, there is no way on earth Ed Milliband or anyone else who considers themselves even remotely progressive would have anything to do with, let alone propose. There’s nothing remotely ‘leftwing’ or even ‘centrist’ about 90% of what they want to do.

With Brexit and the ‘freedom from the EU’ that it brings, they will pursue a right wing agenda presently seen in the culture wars they’re starting all over the place

What then happens then if a manifesto item/promise/hope proves to be too costly or won’t solve the issue its trying to, or has unintended consequences, or is just bad law? They have to implement it?

Or they can go back and say it doesnt work and why. Or possibly just not put forward random crap in the first place without thinking it through?
Whilst I am not sure how to get it working I do think some basic requirement to go along with key manifesto items should be added.

What then happens then if a manifesto item/promise/hope proves to be too costly or won’t solve the issue its trying to, or has unintended consequences, or is just bad law?

That’s where the citizens assemblies come in I mentioned above. If the MP wants to change their mind or is unsure of their constituency mandate for a particular decision then they should seek guidance and have that decision validated. I would allow MPs to ignore the CA, but on pain of being recalled if they do.

What if a party promises to bring back capital punishment?

This is where we need a constitution. Things like opposition to capital punishment should be enshrined in a fundamental statement of values which requires a super-majority or some other higher mechanism to change.

Or they can go back and say it doesnt work and why.

Well, they won’t be able to under dazh’s idea, as he’s saying change democracy to make them unable to do what they want when they get elected. So, you either want to current situation to continue, (ie they can change their minds) or you agree that dazh’s idea is a bad one

Or possibly just not put forward random crap in the first place without thinking it through?

Do you think that the Tories haven’t road tested how voters think about the death penalty? because it plays well with their supporters.

So, you either want to current situation to continue, (ie they can change their minds) or you agree that dazh’s idea is a bad one

It’s hardly an either/or binary scenario is it? There are loads of ways of making MPs more accountable and transparent other than giving them total power or removing it completely. Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?

There’s nothing remotely ‘leftwing’ or even ‘centrist’ about 90% of what they want to do.

Whatever happened to ‘ignore what they say and look at what they do’? By any measure Boris’s government has been the most leftwing/socialist since 1945. Granted covid has been a major factor in that but not all of it. I agree the ‘levelling up’ agenda is smoke and mirrors, but ultimately more investment and activity is going into areas which voted tory than was previously done by the pre-Boris tories or labour.

Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?

That’s a bit of an abstract question which could be phrased as “do you favour direct over representative democracy?” Or “would you prefer MPs to be delegates rather than representatives?” I’d say probably not, unless you’ve a good idea to show how this works in practice. But then I like government to be boring and not driven by populism.

The policies he nicked off Ed represent a small/tiny proportion of the overall direction of travel

Not according to the Guardian’s editorial. They reckon, quote :

“The country we are living in owes as much to Mr Miliband’s leftwing economics as it does to Mr Johnson’s social conservatism.”

So according to the Guardian we owe much to Mr Miliband’s leftwing economics.

That sounds pretty big to me, unless you think economics is a very small part of “the overall travel of direction”?

Have you read that particular Guardian editorial binners? I assumed you had as I know that you like the Guardian to map out your political views for you.

In case you missed it here it is again as it’s a fairly important subject – you need to know whether or not to support Tory economic policy, specially as in some cases, such as corporation tax, it can be to the left of Keir Starmer.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/13/the-guardian-view-on-go-big-ed-miliband-on-transforming-britain

Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?

Yes they probably should. I don’t think currently we have a country that could either wants that or could achieve it in any meaningful way.

Yeah, come on Binners… get justifying everything written in the Guardian and Observer papers, because you’re the editor… or something… 🤷🏻

Do you disagree that voters should be given more (a lot more IMO) power over decisions made in their name?

Absolutely. Including the chance to change their minds. Manifestos can not be immutable. Currently politicians need to be able to adapt to events, experience, knowledge and the resolving of clashes between policies and having to work with the rest of the world, not just the voters here. Should shifts in policies be put back to the voters? Maybe. Should the voters be able to put a stop to, or revise, policies they previously voted for based on… events, experience, clashes between policies and having to work with the rest of the world? Sounds good.

I’d say probably not, unless you’ve a good idea to show how this works in practice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria

..and before someone replies ‘so you want us to be like Syria’, no I don’t. The example of Rojava shows that it is possible to operate a democratic, delegatory decision making process at large scales whilst avoiding populism or the ‘tyranny of the majority’.

No Kelvin not everything, just this editorial on quite an important issue.

Not because binners is the editor but because he is an outspoken supporter of the Guardian’s political stance.

In fact the Guardian is so important to binners that he used to sit and read it in a pub full of UKIP supporters. He doesn’t do that anymore though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria

Agreed we could hear more about Kurdistan as a positive middle east story, on the Iraqi side of the border too. Though Erdoğan’s Turkey is a threat. I worked in Turkey for a short time and had friends who got involved in documenting what was going on in the south east, continuing in London with more welfare and immigration/asylum work. Whatever, there’s a culture that’s quite different to perceptions of that part of the world. Not convinced about the applicability of that model of government here though, where we’re actually allowed to have a government.

Not convinced about the applicability of that model of government here though, where we’re actually allowed to have a government.

As above I offered that example only to support the concept of how more delegatory decision making can work and be benefical to democracy, not as a ‘we should have a revolution too’ example.

The Swiss example is useful as well. But does need an understanding that constant revision of policies, and voting on them again and again, is required, and not ‘undemocratic’.

Can you imagine what this country would be like with regular public referenda?

The death penalty, public floggings, workhouses and the reintroduction of bonded slavery

The death penalty, public floggings, workhouses and the reintroduction of bonded slavery

You really shouldn’t judge everyone by the standards of the Rose and Crown regulars. I fear that experience has clouded your opinion somewhat 🙂

Really? Don’t look at polling on the death penalty then…

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-death-penalty-be-reintroduced-for-the-murder-of-a-child

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/should-the-death-penalty-be-reintroduced-for-terrorist-murder-acts

Batley and Spen anyone?

Make or break for Starmzy?

I think it could be.

(Although I do appreciate leaders don’t give in as quick as David Cameron thinks they should.)

Support from the Muslim community falling off a cliff.

If Starmer’s whole mission was to destroy the Labour party and what it stands for – he’s damn good at it.

What’s the question? They have a great candidate. It absolutely could still be loss. Starmer absolutely partly to blame for that. No, a loss won’t mean he stands down, or is pushed aside, immediately after.

No, a loss won’t mean he stands down, or is pushed aside, immediately after

You’re probably right.

But this is likely to be front and centre news and hard to dodge.

A bit of Starmer bashing will be a good distraction for all the news outlets, and us.

rone
Free Member

Make or break for Starmzy?

Already happened tbh. Either way this won’t make much difference.