Keir Starmer: the anti democrat
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- A couple of days after the election I feel even more strongly than ever that we need proportional representation.
#uk #politics #election #labourparty
ABOUT RICHARD MURPHY
Richard Murphy is Professor of Accounting Practice at Sheffield University Management School. He is director of Tax Research LLP and the author of the Funding the Future blog. His best known book is ‘The Joy of Tax’.
This video was edited by Thomas Murphy.
DONATE TO KEEP THIS CHANNEL ADVERT FREE
ko-fi.com/taxresearch
RICHARD MURPHY ON TWITTER
Follow Richard on his Twitter: RichardJMurphy or on his blog: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/
HIT SUBSCRIBE & GET NOTIFICATIONS
Subscribe and get notified of new videos released.
INTRODUCTION: • Welcome to my channel ...
PLAYLISTS:
Accountancy: • Accounting
Economics: • Economics
Tax: • Tax
Taxing Wealth Report: • Taxing Wealth Report 2024
Green New Deal: • Green New Deal
Money: • Money
Questions from subscribers: • Questions
Miscellaneous: • Miscellaneous
#richardmurphy #richardjmurphy #economy #economics #accountancy #accounting #tax #uktax #ukeconomy #greennewdeal
*Amazing video, you work for 40yrs to have $1M in your retirement, meanwhile some people are putting just $10K into trading from just few months ago and now they are multimillionaires*
Waking up every 14th of each month to $210,000 it’s a blessing to I and my family… Big gratitude to Ann Marie strunk 🙌
Hello , I am very interested. As you know, there are tons of investments out there and without solid knowledge, I can't decide what is best. Can you explain further how you invest and earn?
Same, I operate a wide- range of Investments with help from My Financial Adviser. My advice is to get a professional who will help you, plan and enhance your management skills. For the record, working with Ann Marie strunk, has been an amazing experience.
Hello how do you make such monthly?? I'm a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 🤦♀️of myself because of low finance but I still
believe in God
I'm favoured, $90K every week! I can now give back to the locals in my community and also support God's work and the church. God bless America,, all thanks to Ms Ann Marie strunk 😊🎉
100% right
Couldn't agree more. But sadly Starmer, as well as being no Socialist he is not democratic either. Both reasons that, after 40+ years of membership, I resigned from the Labour party. Starmer is a totally autocratic and untrustworthy individual! In my opinion the UK needs urgent electoral reform.
Quite agree,!
Make the People sovereign,!
Not the parliament,?
The FPTP makes a mockery of democracy.
So does the HoL, no constitution, certain powers the pm has, powers the King still holds etc.
The UK isn't a democracy in the sense of the 21st century for a lot of reasons.
@@Guitar6ty FPTP is the least bad. Underlying theory:
humans are fallible- we don’t have perfect access to reality. So to create knowledge we make conjectured attempts at explaining things. But given we are fallible, these are not bound to be correct. On the contrary there are bound to be errors. So progress is made through the ongoing process of criticism- error correction leading to new conjectures, which are then subject to the same ongoing process. Applied to political theory this means the key factor a system should be judged by is its ability to remove bad leaders without violence. E.g correct errors. PR would make this much more difficult, it would also give disproportionate power to the 3rd largest party who would gain greater influence in choosing the terms of a coalition. This stultifies the only way in which knowledge can grow.
Our system is not meant to be democratic. It’s meant to produce a government which suits the establishment. It does this very well.
We live in the past, a feudal past, a past that serves some very well.
We have a form of PR for the Scottish Parliament. It’s not perfect but it so much better than FPTP.
Same in Wales
Same in Northern Ireland
But not in Cornwall.
People like Richard give me hope. I can't say the same for Keir Starmer and his cabinet. Let's wait and see. The damage of 14 years of Conservative austerity needs to be ameliorated.
This is the system in Britain that has been used from 1950, English did not let NI even vote until 1973.
Its simple majority , super majority is from US when you control house and senate with 2/3 of the vote .
Why is labour majority problem, but Tory was not, Toris did not deliver anything they promised.
Starmer has appointed exerts to cabinet positions , Toris had ignorant people, who did know a thing (Rees Mogg, Coffey, Shapps, Frost, Boris, Sunak)
Yep New Zealand has MMP and generally it works pretty good and virtually everybodies vote counts.
It works in places where they have more grown up people in their parliaments, we'd have no chance.
we would need to evolve it
@@richy69ify Yes about 600 years may do it
Somebody on another channel pointed out that with full PR in this election, Labour + Lib Dem + Green votes would have been enough for them to form a strong coalition which sounds like a highly desirable result.
Well two right wing parties and the Greens
@@keithparker1346 There would have been more chance of Labour adopting the Lib Dems' excellent proposals for social care.
Only if you count the current popular vote, which due to fptp caused a lot of tactical voting.
While it is a logical conclusion and probably not far from reality, but one can only know when an election is held under PR.
Setting aside the tribal nature in the UK, one might be surprised about the outcomes.
Biggest threat to PR however will be with the public. Not just getting rid of tribalism, but also accepting what it means to have a coalition government where compromises have to be made.
So from the outside, it looks like it can only have positive effects to finally get the uk into the 21st century and civilization, but it will be a steap learning curve with quite a few hick-ups.
@@keithparker1346 You don't seem to have grasped the fact that you have a minority viewpoint. You seem to be asking for an electoral system that will deliver a government favoured by the minority you align with. If more people vote for the Greens, the Greens will hold the most power.
Agree 100%
Personally prefer STV PR that we have in Scotland for the Local Council Elections
The D'Hondt system is probably democratically the worst - 1 MILLION+ votes for the SNP Regional Lists resulted in just TWO List seats 😡
It's interesting that there's such a noise over FPTP after the GE. In 2019 43.6% of the popular vote delivered an 80 seat majority, and 100% of the power to the English Tories. What's the difference?
there was, there always is, just has more traction today as people are better informed
Fptp has always been crap. Parties have been wanting change for decades it's not a new thing
The difference is that outcome of the 2019 GE was undemocratic, and the outcome of the 2024 GE was *even more* undemocratic.
No party should get more than 50% of the seats without 50% of the votes, and I think it can be argued that no party should *ever* be awarded more than 50% of seats exactly because 51% of seats gives it 100% of the power.
And those of us clamouring for electoral reform have been doing my so for decades. Funnily enough, now it inconveniences the Tories to only get a fair share of the seats, the media is discussing PR!
Zero.
Doesn't mean people should not bring it up again and again.
The difference is both sides have been screwed over by it now. The right used to claim it was just something the left cared about. That's changed now
But the country has no confidence in politics anymore. If we haven’t have had to put up with grifters for all these years then there would of been better choices.
FPTP system adds to the feeling that nothing can really change.
The main barrier to PR is the party donors who tell people in Labour and cons what to do
"party donors" is not a feature of PR, but of political corruption in the UK
No, No, No. You don't want party lists in any form. This gives too much power to the parties. You need to vote for names in the order you prefer, this denies the parties the ability to put their favourites in. The Single Transferable Vote achieves this.
Agreed. But party lists are still better than FPTP. If we went that way, it would also be necessary to oblige the parties to observe internal democracy. For example, it shouldn't be possible for members of bodies like Labour's NEC to award themselves seats. It certainly shouldn't be possible for limited companies to be recognised as political parties.
Parties chose the candidates already. The German system is good. You have an AV chosen local representative, then the rest of the house is made up from PR lists.
Also, the party name and policies are far more important than the person you are electing. Look at the Tory Geoffrey Cox, he barely spends anytime in his constituency and still got returned. IDS and Jeremy Hunt are good local MPs who have done terrible things to the country, looking at the bigger picture rather than the “good for a Tory” local issues may actually be better for our democracy.
Also, I don’t want to have to compromise my vote by taking a second choice. I should get representation from my first choice if they achieve a high enough vote share nationally. This is just tactical voting by another name.
@@col.hertford9855 But by using STV you can still vote for parties, it's just that you can order your chosen party's candidates. So in the case of Geoffrey Cox you can still vote for Tory candidates but just put Cox last so he probably won't get returned. This is the advantage of STV MP's are directly responsible to their voters, sure they have to support their parties policies in general, after all that's why you voted for them, but they must take their constituents into account not just party whips, party funders and readers of the Daily Mail.
@@charliemoore2551 Maybe, but party lists are still the worst form of PR as it gives parties too much power over the selection of candidates as they will have their favourites who have to fall in line behind the party whips and funders and can ignore their constituents as it's the party that choses where they go on the list, the voters can only vote for a party.
It's even more dysfunctional when, within the Labour party itself, individuals like Starmer and those who seek his favour are found to be purging left-leaning MPs in order to surround himself with like-minded minions. So democracy within a party with MPs who may lie on the Left to Right leaning spectrum is an issue.
Supermajority, what is that? AFAIK, there is no such thing in the UK Parliament. It is just majority or not, right? Like my own country, Denmark.
I do agree a PR system would be better for the UK, if the politicians understand it and work with it. In my country it works very well.
I agree. It confers no greater powers on the leading party. Just the tories trying to diss Labour's success, caused by their mayhem of a government.
@@BillDavies-ej6ye The larger majority does have advantages if your trying to push though bills that may be unpopular with your own MPs
@@stephenrowley4171 True. But they do have party whips who have a role in that.
@@stephenrowley4171up to about 50 or so to have space to get things through despite rebels. Beyond that there’s no practical benefit.
#IndependenceisNormal 🏴🏴🏴
🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴🏴
I actually agree with you, for once.
A climate science denier. I live in Ireland where children know about the evidence and ges we have PR.
@@denisdaly1708 For every scientist, paid by the globalists, to push this agenda. there are others who are silenced. Or they are ridiculed. I don't buy any of it. I've sold my car and just use a pushbike to get around, because I can see where this is all heading, and if I hadn't got rid of my car at this point, I would have been stuck with a large paperweight on my drive.
Here we are, 4 days into the new government and Starmer has already broken another of my hopes which was that he would uphold a more open style of government which did not resort to cronyism. But Jacqui Smith as Education Minister? Given a title, like Sunak did to bring ‘Lord Greensill’ back as foreign minster, Smith was disgraced (and resigned) in 2009 on the back of a scandal over housing expenses. And with 400+ MPs from which to choose who are accountable in the House of Commons!
They tried democracy with the Brexit referendum. They won't make that mistake again.
Australia has long had Proportional Representation. We are very mindful of who we vote for, and voting is compulsory ($20 fine is not). PR works by voters placing 1,2,3,4... on the ballot - first to last. If a candidate does not get 50%+1 in the first round, then the least likely's candidate (the lowest number of votes), are distributed (preference #2). This continues up until someone gets more than 50%.
Whilst I 100% agree that PR is needed immediately, attacking Starmer's result being totally unrepresentative is somewhat disingenuous. This was a deliberate, targeted use of the fptp system to achieve a result. No point in large majority in one constituency, just enough in many.
So four things are needed, not just PR.
It must be:
PR
Reform of the press
Reform of standards and a constitution.
Brexit reversal.
When these have been done, a stable and equal society will be possible
Reform of the press. How is that done without censorship?
Makes sense. Except Brexit. One could use Brexit to focus on the domestic economy, much as Russia was forced to by US economic warfare. It turned out to be a blessing in disguise, resulting in a stronger, more independent, more productive and prosperous country. Similarly, we could re-industrialize, especially in critical industries, and focus more on domestic markets and needs. Brexit doesn't have to be a catastrophe, but lazy ass market fundamentalists are incapable of doing any real work or investment to make it anything else.
(I'm a Keynesian, libertarian socialist who voted Remain; not a Brexiteer)
Now the parliament has a Labour government you can be sure the Labour Party will go back on that vote. They only voted that way because they were in opposition.
NO RULING PARTY will vote to cut off its own legs. We need a …………… Referendum.
Hahaha, after the last (Brexit) referendum we the people will NEVER be allowed to vote directly on any issue again.
People were lied to, and not informed properly is what happened. Oh and a certain select million over, were not even allowed to vote in it either despite being able to vote in things usually.
Hopefully, the fact that Labour's current victory is so ridiculously disproportionate, will make them still support proportional representation. Labour only got a third of the popular vote. If in 2029, more people switch from Torry to Reform, there's a real possibility of Farage becoming PM.
@@thebigreddub It’s worse than you think …… Labour only got 33% of the 60% turnout, meaning they only got 20% of the votes. Note only 70% of the population are registered to vote so that makes 20% look optimistic in the extreme.
That is staggering that Labour had such a landslide on 14% of the population voting for them. Almost fraudulently claiming to be the voice of the people.
Starmer didn't even have an honest mandate to lead the Labour Party, let alone a crystal clear mandate to lead the country. People didn't want the Tories. Very few actively wanted Starmer.
and as with many elections, it´s often more about the government doing badly than the opposition doing well.
@Minimmalmythicist I imagine they and their media chums will attempt to rewrite history as this being a stunning victory for centrist politics, whatever "centrist" is supposed to mean. Just as they rewrote history by erasing 2017 and suggesting 2019 was the worst ever Labour performance. I really do dislike them a lot.
He was elected leader of the Labour party. Who in the 9,704,655 who voted for Starmer didn't want him?
@@Number9s I take it you haven't seen the polls on his record low popularity for an incoming PM? Or the poll listing reasons people are voting Labour?
@@Number9s Ok, this is what´s known as "missing a lot of context".
I.e he ran on a platform of "Corbynism-lite" then ditched it pretty quickly, and plenty of people who voted for him are rather disappointed to say the least.
Richard speaks for me, here
PR is one way to do it. But what about either ranked choice voting or participatory democracy/semi-direct democracy?
I'd agree, we need PR. But the political establishment isn't going to change the rules of a race they know only *they* or one other political party will win.....
We had a referendum on ranked choice voting in 2011, but people voted to stay with the first past the post system
@@JC-ce1ks To be fair, most people voted the way they did because they disliked Nick Clegg. This was a perfect warning of why referenda are in general a bad idea in this country, and showed how ridiculous it was to have the Brexit one.
That's too sensible
@@MentalLentil-ev9jr I think it happened a few years too early too. A lot of people got more politically engaged with the rise of social media (there's a reason why Corbyn was 200-1 with the bookies to become Labour leader - they didn't seem to realise just how much politics had changed by 2015). In 2011 the vast majority of people still got their news and information from mainstream media who were against any change to 'first past the post' especially when the mainstream political parties were all neoliberal at the time (I remember the media claiming that ranked choice voting was 'too complicated'). I think that if we had a new referendum now people would vote for any new voting system over first past the post, especially Reform voters after they only got four MP's from four million votes (but that might change after the next election if they take over from the Tories which I fear could happen).
Party lists are also lacking in democracy to a degree.
The electorate do not choose their representatives with party lists, thenparties chose them.
This is the "United Kingdom". No PR here. We still use miles, most of the rest of the world uses kilometres. The rest of the world drives left hand drive cars apart from ex-British Empire nations and Japan and a few other minor cases.
We don't know how many people were turned turn due to not having the correct ID as well as some postal votes that had issues.
It has nothing to do with ID. There was high turnout on this GE and Conservative won from millions of ordinary people voted Conservative,but Starmer and Farage rigged votes from Conservative to have coalition yet Reform got 1% of votes = to 5 seats. Conservative got 410 seats. Labour got 121 seats according to real results but when exit poll was announced that Labour was 49% ahead of Conservative this was a fury and Starmer immediately r rigged the voting system by switching seats from Conservative to Labour.Conservative won this GE and Conservative will be back as a government soon still with Sunak as our British PM for Conservative won but Labour rigged votes
I can't stand it either. Their cake should be just the right size. They shouldn't be allowed to eat a whole one.
Cameron deliberately screwed Clegg over in the vote reform referendum. We all lost there.
The most undemocratic thing about this is that it takes the side who just won in the bent system to call a vote to change it.
Would take someone of crazy integrity to do that.
Put democracy before party.
Its asking turkeys to vote for Christmas.
As a former legal Starmer should have that on his CV.
A sense of fair play and justice.
The Tories won't support PR unless they kicked by FPTP a few more times.
While it's hurt then this time it's benefited them more times than it hurt them.
Clearly, the current system of FPTP does not elect an MP based on the majority of the electorate's views. We have seen this time and time again. PR can have many forms.
Can someone please point me at an article that explains the current PM's opposition to PR
As far as I know Starmer wasn’t interested in it for this election because it wasn’t a voter priority
Starmer has been fighting the lies of right wing populism, there’s no chance of brown up debate around PR when you’ve got the Tories screaming about unisex toilets and bogus Rwanda schemes
PM (Plurally Mendatious) 😳 Choose any opinion and we will give you the date 📅 unpopulist undemocratic usurious unionist Keir Starmer [62] had it 😞
I'll try to find something, but in the meantime, have a look into the Trilateral Commission, of which Starmer was a member for several years - against the wishes of his then party leader, Jeremy Corbyn.
@@alexandrabarnes4511 thanks.
I read Oliver Eagletons 'Starmer project ', contains some good insights about the Tri-lateral commission
Something like MMP (Mixed-member proportional representation) would be needed to allow for independent candidates to stand - if it were "pure" PR then that would generally rule out independent candidates, surely?
You mostly vote for a party in PR, not a candidate, that is only an afterthought.
A simple and logical system to replace FPTP is what I call the '2 round' system:
Keep the local constituencies and
1st round you choose anyone you like, if no-one gets more than 50% then you get:
2nd round, (2 weeks later). This time you get to choose between the top 2.
This way you still get to choose your local representative - and not someone from a centrally drawn up list. Because every vote counts in round 2 then you get no vote 'wasted' and more people will take part in politics.
With this system Reform UK could have got about 91 seats - which is much more representative for 4 million votes.
Yes it costs more money but it's better democracy, hence, it's worth it.
This '2 round' system may also have prevented Sadiq Khan from winning London Mayor because many votes were effectively 'wasted' on all the candidates that had no hope of winning (Khan got less than 50% of the vote).
To those who say it causes more 'hung parliaments', this is not such a bad thing because it would prevent someone like Kier Starmer taking us closer to the EU again. We already know the majority of the voters in the UK do not want to join the EU again!
Please share this post with as many people as you can, we simply must replace FPTP system.
This '2 round' system is easily the best.
Give it a trial for 10 years and see how it goes, then vote on it again (I'm sure you will love it).
We should also have more (Yes / No) referendums like the Swiss do:
E.g. we should vote to have the Australian immigration system and sent the boatpeople back to France (Yes / No)
I'm 100% sure the UK population would agree to this.
and we should vote on getting rid of Postal Voting - too easily corrupted, I have now gone back to going to the polling station so I can 'vote with my feet'! (black biro pen)!
Don’t want to state the bleeding obvious, but Labour go the majority of the vote on election day. We all have a democratic right to vote, but if we do not take up that right, we have no right to complain about the outcome.
Look elsewhere and tell me that proportional representation has produced coherent, cohesive government that satisfies the majority of the electorate.
I am no fan of this Labour Party, but they are in government because they were voted in by the majority of those who could be bothered to vote.
Except they did NOT get the majority of the votes
Exactly and those who couldn't be bothered to vote weren't bothered to vote Tory, Labour or Reform, plus any of the other parties.
@philbates7975
Starmer did not get the majority of votes. Labour polled 34% of votes, that means 66% voted for AN Other.
Starmer got less votes than Corbyn did in 2019 but our lousy system gives him a 172 seat majority.
It is not representative democracy.
I want PR. However, I think it requires political parties to work; by that I mean that it pushes out independents. Is there a way that independent candidates can be included?
It's tough being an independent now - it might be differently tough under PR, but still tough either way
Our political system is not meant to be democratic it's meant to deliver decisive governments. The majority wanted the Tories out so in that sense it works. The main problem is when turn out is low you get stupid results like what we've got now,and likewise when the majority want governments to follow a policy such as Brexit that also works. To me it's not the system we have,the Lib Dems showed it can work, its what politicians are offering or not offering that matters. As the BBC political commentator said about Labour's plans, " it's as if they copied and pasted the Tory plans. So in other words Labour offered nothing apart from change and a majority voted for them crazy but true. Lastly I believe Reform claim if they'd got another 300,000 votes they would now be the government so our present system does work,and we should remember every area as it's own MP.
There are a lot of things needed to stop the corruption in parliament however many mps quite like the privilege and contacts being an mp in fact in many cases this is the only reason they are mps and it definitely is not just the tories that are guility of this although it seems to be almost required to get them the job.the problem is how to impose these new rules on the very people who make the rules.limiting the power of the pm would be a good start.
I agree. I don't think we should have "career politicians" who go to university studying politics, which is nothing like real-life experience. I believe members should have worked for a living, seen day to day struggles that people have. Without it, we've got many mp's who haven't got a clue. I also think they should have at least 6 months of living on universal credit. If you can't understand what poverty really is, how can you have a clue how to improve the so called safety net.
We have you been, Labour conference voted for PR way back. Tories haven’t said anything, they may now 😂 Present system is a joke.
If we ever get to the point of deciding a form of pr that decision should be kept miles away from those that wish to keep the current system.l would suggest looking elsewhere for the best system that works(does not need to be perfect)scrutinise it in great detail and if it still stands up as a good system go for it.
Sadly true! 😢 I always wondered why such a diverse nation like GB would de facto have a 2-party system
I am not sure we have anymore, yeah there's be a swing to Labour but is is wide rather than deep, a lot of constituencies on both sides of the political divide are now held by thin margins.
@@IMBlakeleylet's see then if you get some more diversity, hopefully not with more struggles and debates blocking progress
@@Dr.RiccoMastermind I thinking/hoping that MPs who have small majorities will be paying somewhat more attentions to the constituents. There's some big Labour figures in 'safe' seats not that secure.
Maybe there should be a way set up so that if individual mps are corrupt,not up to the job,consistently absent from doing the job can be more easily removed instead of having to wait 5 years or the party leaders
PR always the best way forward
There’s a concerted effort on the Right to delegitimise Starmer’s mandate. I didn’t see them
complaining in 2010 (Tories 36%) 2017 Theresa May got as many votes as Thatcher in 79 but lost her majority. Major got more votes in 1992 than Blair in 97 but 21 seats to Blair’s 179. Yes, it’s unfair - deal with it!
Which is exactly what Starmer and his team did this time. So did the Lib Dems - instead of complaining about the system and losing they played it at its own game. And won!
The Left don’t really like winning elections- so much more comfortable to just complain. The Right do, that’s why they have controlled British politics for so long and we see the consequences of that.
We won under an unfair system. Yes, that’s unfair and undemocratic but the alternative is to seed victory to your opponents.
I believe in PR because it will bring about a radical re-alignment of British society. It will get rid of the two great parties ( which are only coalitions anyway) and allow us to be behave like modern European democracies. Will that happen under Starmer? We’ll see. But until then let’s celebrate that, by hook or by crook, we’ve ousted this bunch of charlatans and thieves.
But did he get more than the others guys using the same system last time?
1:45 in, I don’t see why Starmer, particularly, is anti-democrat. Are you saying he should have refused to run for office, because your electoral system isn’t truly representative? I’m all for PR, but I think this video needs a more accurate (representative) title.
Starmer has been proven anti democratic in a few ways. A short while ago he was all for locals choosing their candidates and has now gone against that
His staff come from a broad social background, I'd say that's democratic.
@@wannabeadrummer that's diversity not democracy
@@keithparker1346 Diverse Democracy😊
With respect, Richard, you are referring to party-list PR. Many people are potentially put off PR by this, pointing out reasonably enough that the top candidate on a larger party’s list is effectively in a safe seat. There would have to be a determined campaign to bring a party’s vote down below the quota to deny that candidate their seat, no matter how unpopular they are.
Single Transferable Vote is much better. Voters can vote for the individual candidates, thereby getting fair representation for their favoured party without rewarding a substandard candidate just because they persuaded the party to select them.
OK, voting takes more effort as one has to properly consider the relative merit of each individual candidates to come up with a ranking, but but the counting and calculation can be done very quickly with the aid of computers. And the likely benefit is the high satisfaction (as in Ireland) with the process: every voter influenced not just which parties but which of their candidates were elected.
Parties just stack that system with their key figures at the top of the list. Doesn’t foster better MP-constituency relationships at all.
agree to an extent and I'm a strong advocate for PR (i think it's essential if there is to be any democratic future) but Labour won in the way it did purely because they HAD to expressly DUE to FPTP, with very efficient targeting of resources in the constituencies they needed to win by small margins. Labour wouldn't have had to do it this way under PR so you can no more credibly map vote share achieved under FPTP onto that what would have been gained under PR than you can the other way round
Agreed. Our current pseudo democracy is damaging for our economy and society and the extremes of parliamentary power that arise as a consequence is the reason for the frequent insane political swings that we have to live through.
Maybe also big parties should not be allowed to send disproportional amounts of election advertisement, as the great English Mathmatician and RUclipsr MATT PARKER demonstrated 😂
Shame his video initially had a thumbnail that heavily implied that Reform were a nightmare...I noticed the thumbnail did get changed to a more neutral one
Got the seats but NOT the people. WTF !!!
What a mess.
Great video about our broken disfunctional FPTP system - hope you're supporting make votes matter and electoral reform society
I notice PR is missing from the Labour manifesto.
So that clearly means they have made no pre-election promises about it. At least that's clearer than what tax rises are coming.
Mate, you live in a country with no written constitution, an unelected head of state, an unelected upper house, a PM who can use the King's Prerogative to subvert parliament and a high who has interfered with the operation of parliament to his advantage and you thing PR will give you democracy..... You have not got a clue! Ireland and Switzerland have a very similar system where their constitution is enacted by the people, can only be changed by the people and all strategic decisions are reserved to the people not parliament nor the government - International treaties on EU membership and trade, divorce, abortion, gay marriage and so on. While in most other European countries power rests with parliament and a party list style PR system is used.. You need to have a national discussion on democracy before selecting a voting system otherwise all you'll have is a different mess.
PR would also do a lot to alleviate voter apathy , which in my discernment is manufactured and weaponised against democracy.
Turkeys and Christmas
I don´t mind having the chief scientific advisor as science minister, that´s one of the things I agree with him about. However, the problem with his Cabinet is it´s all full of Starmer clones. There´s nobody from the left of the party, it´s just full of people who 100% agree with him and that´s dangerous.
What I really don´t like about Starmer as a leader, is he doesn´t deal well with people who don´t agree with him. Instead of say, having a couple of ministers from the left (which even Tony Blair did), he´ll just sideline them, purge them, and act like there´s no problem.
I refused to vote for Labour for the first time ever, in large part because of this. I reluctantly voted Green (they were the most left wing party running in my seat) despite having some reservations about the Green´s energy policy (I´m pro-nuclear) and having big reservations about them enthusiastically backing the dodgy Zelinsky government.
Oh give over
In theory PR would be great, but.... the problem with PR is you are almost certainly guaranteed to have parties in power that got only a small fraction of the vote and whom the majority of the people did not vote for, because these are gathered together (by the bigger parties) in order to form a majority through coalition. The small party can then have far too much leverage and special interest power by holding the rest to ransom on other issues. Fix this problem and you may be on to a winner.
You cannot see any irony in our current situation with Labour getting a huge majority with a fraction of the vote I guess
@@keithparker1346 It's not the same as parties with only 2%, 3%, 4% of the votes having the power to disrupt government for extreme views (left, right or special interest groups). THAT is what PR can delivery. Most of the weak government around the world are elected through PR so you end up with stalemate and nothing gets done to improve the lives of people. I'm not saying FPTP is good, but it does at least provide a (generally) more stable government. Whether you argue that is a good thing (getting good stuff done) or a bad thing (takes time to get rid of a corrupt government) is a whole other matter.
@@DaveEP name 5 weak govts that have pr
@@DaveEPwe get that now with FPTP, if a faction in a big tent party is willing to be disruptive
We've just watched it happen for the last decade or so!
@@markwelch3564 Sounds like everyone is happy with weak governments then....
I'm sure Starmer isn't squeaky clean and has many faults. But rather than focussing on the things he's got wrong, can we just acknowledge the one thing he's got right? He got the Tories out, which back in 2019 would have been considered impossible, after Corbyn had succeeded in making Labour unelectable.
False. Objectively, more people voted for the Jam Man in either of the GEs he stood as leader, than KS, despite current leadership's well documented mission of throwing the last two to get rid of him. What won for the Red Team was the Blues proving they were every bit as bad as JC said they'd be, and the Light Blues splitting the vote.
I'll keep saying it, Labour would rather be the opposition than part of a coalition government: the last 14 years have proved that beyond doubt. Add to that, they would rather lose the next GE than support PR. But don't expect the Tories to support electoral reform either. Both parties are stuck with a 20th century idea of government.
*IF REFORM HAD THE SAME VOTES PER SEAT AT LABOUR -- THEY WOULD HAVE 175 MP's*
If the system were fair and not mad - they would have 94 MP's
Now I'm a Geen supporter - But I believe in democracy and even horrible people deserve correct representation
No they don’t.
I agree with your sentiment but the thought of 175 Reform MP's is scary.
TBF if we had PR and the ghastlies in reform had 94 seats then Green would have 75 approx. LD similar ergo we'd be looking at a coalition of Labour/Green/Liberal so not a bad thing. Labour are now pretty firmly centre right, about where the 1970s tories were, LD less so and Green centre left a coalition of those would be more or less perfectly central.
It's the though on different numbers of the the far right tories aligning with he fascists in Reform that is scary.
@@IMBlakeley true
Not a fan of PR really…
What's the problem with pr?
This is not a good analysis at all!
Whatever electoral system we have, some parties will play the game better than others. In this case, Labour, Lib Dems and Greens all played it beautifully.
Labour were ruthlessly efficient in exercising voter efficiency. They worked the system to win as many seats as possible under our current system.
In 2019, Corbyn won a similar amount of votes overall, because he won a bunch of safe Labour seats with massive 25,000 vote majorities.
This time, Starmer accepted lower majorities in safer seats in order to concentrate on winning smaller majorities in target seats.
This is how you win in a FPTP system!
You can't superimpose PR over the election result and conclude that Labour have too many MPs.
The voting system affects the vote, both directly via tactical voting and indirectly by way of campaign strategy.
Indeed, tactical voting is out of the window with PR. But then again, how many people have a such a political insight that they opt to cast a tactical vote, I think the number will not be that important.
@@vgstbpeople are claiming that there was a huge amount of tactical voting in this election. I'm not convinced that was the case
Both the Tories and Labour are well aware that PR works for them both. I agree with you but this needs applied to both major parties.
I have two words: Trilateral Commission
Loving these opinions. Subscribed.
'sir keir?' and you think you are a democracy? quaint.
I've been debating people actually still unaware that the Labour membership voted on PR but Starmer ignored it.
I fear the corporate socialists would never let that happen as it could lead to democratic socialism and they would rather have the national socialist takeover than let the democratic socialists take control.
I never mention the Nazi !
They are all socialists!
We don’t have any party that is offering anything but a mix of socialism ( the collective pot) and capitalism ( free market enterprise) they like to pretend that democratic socialism is the only socialism but that’s not true because they are all socialists!! They all use the collective pot ( public funds) and they all tax the public. It’s time we had a real conversation about socialism and its different forms. Reform are corporate socialist with a nationalist ideology and that makes them national socialists!
Iv had enough of people pretending otherwise because it’s not true….
@@eightiesmusic1984 “Thatcherite “
Economics is corporate socialism
A mix of socialism ( collective pot and taxation) and capitalism ( free market economics).
National socialists are corporate socialists with a nationalist ideology.
I have not seen any other comparisons with the Nazis if that is the comparison you are making. It serves no purpose and does not advance any argument.
@@eightiesmusic1984 _"by which you mean the far right, "_
National Socialists were on the Far-Left though.
@@eightiesmusic1984 _" because there are plenty who wrongly conflate national socialism with socialism. "_
National Socialism being one of the branches of socialism is a historical fact, hun. You cannot be an advocate for centralized planning and strong government controls without being a socialist. That's what made Hitler a socialist. He may have been to the right from the Bolsheviks, but he was still a socialist leftist as he believed in strong central government control. Hitler outright declared himself a socialist in Mein Kampf, just not the Marxist international or full Soviet type. He struggled with HOW to distinguish his socialism from the rest of the Marxist crowd.
That we're having this kind of conversation after thousands of years of civilization is absurd.
We had a referendum on the alternative vote system and we already rejected it.
Yes 13 years ago. If course we should abuse by that result forever /sarcasm
13 years is an age in politics. That is 13 years of old voters dieing and you votera coming of age. Easily a new political generation.
You or the right wing media had no complaints when the Tories won on similar grounds but only when Labour wins?
It wasn't very similar.
Boris won 47% of the vote, substantially increasing the Conservative vote whereas cardboard Starmer did not achieve a significant increase in people voting Labour and was vastly overrewarded compared with Boris simply by default. He will have to treat the supermajority wisely given the numbers who clearly do not support him but I doubt he will be capable of this.
Your clickbait title doesn’t do your channel justice - you’re better than this.
Trying to decide who’s luckier… Gareth Southgate or keir starmer… both riding to the e top without a serious game plan that actually works…🤔
Just like the Tories then and refUK😂
Haha. Currently it's the best we've got...
England winning on penalties and Labour winning because Reform and Lib Dems took angry Tory votes
Unless you have aged dramatically recently, you will remember we did have a referendum on proportional representation.
Admittedly it was a compromised AV version. Turnout was less than 50% (I had to step over a sleeping cat and reluctantly wake the pollling staff in my area). It got demolished.
It was a Lib-Dem inspired one and it probably wasn't helped by them forming a coalition with the Tories.
As I said (in a previous video), you cannot use our current FPTP results to project on a future proportional one, They are fundamentally different. Voters may be voting strategically to help defeat one (FPTP) rather than support one.
PR using a list system do not represent the electorate. PR by single transferable voting in multiple member constituencies is the better option
Funny how people like you didn’t complain while the Tory’s were in power, come on labour sort this country out.
Really?
You used the term 'super majority' incorrectly. Sorry you don't like FPTP, I'd rather have PR but in its absence a Labour majority is a nice change.
Using the term 'Super Majority' makes you sound like a little tory cry baby, is that.what you are?
Super as in large. I'm not seeing the issue you have
Ehh, no. PR would not be an effective system in the UK. We dont need unstable coalities and loads of independent voices. What we really need is representative and effective parties that fulfill their mandate and then the next party has the skill, ability and confidence to fulfill their mandate. We should see Tories repeal labour policies and vice versa. The real threat though is that labour love to entrench their policies and changes and make them impossible to undo. Thats the real threat.
I see your point but I am not sure that the Liberal Democrats would want PR now, they have done quite well this election with FPTP and there is the other problem, it would have people more likely to vote but we could have nasty consequences, if you see what I mean?
As a supporter of PR in principle, I find this attack on Starmer somewhat disingenuous. What happened in this election was that the Labour Party and the Lib Dems used the system that exists very effectively, by maximising their vote efficiency across a large number of constituencies and by benefiting from tactical voting. I don't see how playing the system to remove the Tories makes Starmer, or indeed Davies, anti-democratic. They had no choice but to fight in the existing system, and they did it well. In fact, it could be argued that removal of the Tories was the settled will of the people, which is why the Tories got so few votes.
This hand wringing about Labours vote share misses the point. Starmer could have played to the Labour base, as Corbyn did, and amassed a large vote share in a restricted number of seats, thereby losing, as Corbyn did. As it is, he broadened his appeal and won more seats by a smaller margin.
Salty tears! 😭😭😭😭😭
People who complain about the system by complaining to the system are a bit silly! Will they ever learn? Or are they just easing the concern of the masses! You know what with the amount of censoring there is!
Oh boy, wait until you hear about all the successful protests movements there have been. Unless you're living in a world of chimney sweeps and electrically excluded women.
Theres no such thing as a supermajority in britain. Thats a tory phrase.
Hi Richard J Murphy once more you declare your desire for living in a real democracy, what I want to know is just how and why you think it is anything other than a 'good idea', a bit like 'Western civilisation'. What I want is a clear coherent explanation of what it actually is and how it can actually work.
My underlying problem is that to start with it would depend on the electorate being well educated, sensible and practical and not just self-interested and demanding. The concept also relies very heavily on the idea that there really is enough homogeniety and common ground in human society to justify the imposition of majority rule over dissenting minorities.
I do understand that the problems we face with trying to establish any coherent national policies in a culture made of so many diverse interests are manifold, but to simply ignore and dismiss minorities when doing so fosters so much divisive discontent does not seem sensible to me.
All that said I do agree that the state we are actually in cannot in any way be considered a democracy, the fact is that this 'new' government is now empowered to enact legislation that is supported by no more than ten percent of the electorate!, itself less than three quarters of the population.
Cheers, Richard.
PR would give an increased chance of hung parliaments leading to greater difficulty in forming a coherent government that can then implement its policies. Policies wanted by the majority of the electorate. It would also make it harder to remove governments. Political progress would be stultified further, as laws and policies are shifted and changed among various coalitions with the aim of staying in power. Rather than being implemented on their mandate from the electorate out of fear that they could easily be removed next time if they don’t. See: fallibilism and Popper.
There doesn't appear to be a system to suit everyone. I agree, those in power, whether through FPTP or PR, want to maintain it, often at a cost to the country.
@@Sujki19 FPTP is the least bad. For reasons stated
@@Sujki19 also given greater mix of influence there would be much less clear line of responsibility. Making it harder for the electorate to identify and correct errors (remove offending parties). Progress would be even slower.
@@ptaylor3304absolute nonsense
@@keithparker1346 that’s a really convincing argument you’ve made there.
agree PR is the future but to attack Starmer on day 2 when the Tories have held us hostage to FPP for last 14 years seems a bit extreme
Democracy is brilliant! It gave us the gift of Brexit.
How come you only just brought this up, you what democracy you said how come you havn't brought up the matter of Scotland voteing to remind in Europe and vast parts of the UK voted to remain aswell no geart landslide just a observation
Firstly,there is no such thing as a "Supermajority" in the UK constitution. So don't use the term. It is gibberish.
Secondly, I note that you are castigating Starmer for not doing what you want after just a couple of days of his term. PR is desirable, but it will have to be campaigned for. If Starmer decided to change the constitution without any democratic mandate, you would be the first to whinge and whine.
In fact, you would whinge and whine whatever happened, and whoever did it.
What he is saying is that 412 seats for 34% of the vote is not a democracy!
Whether we like it or not, the term "supermajority" has entered the political vocabulary here in the UK to mean a very large majority. I've heard politicians, who ought to know better, use it too. However, everyone here knows it means a very large majority. I imagine very few people confuse it with the 'correct' US meaning because few people know or care about US politics to that level of detail. So in that sense it isn't "gibberish" - it's just language being used loosely but without loss of effectiveness. Tbh, the growing interchangeable use of "phenomenon" and "phenomena" (and "criterion"/"criteria") itrritates me more.
@@fburton8posters on here getting butthurt over the use of supermajority...they should be more upset that it was undeserved and unrepresentative
Vox populi vox dei Keir Starmer go away 80 percent democratically say
I live in a country with PR. People here same the same, it’s not democratic.
You didn't moan when johnson had a super majority.. he had 14 years to introduce pr... sour grapes.
You think he is a tory? If you think that then you seriously must have never watched many of his videos.