Politics Thread 6

[Grumpy David]

It's pointless to repeatedly bring up PR. It's not happening and as I mentioned already you would still have periodical boundary reviews in a PR system unless you just made the entire UK a single constituency PR system (which doesn't usually represent the preferred PR system people advocate for) so it doesn't provide a good counter point.

Apologies King David, but I'll bring up any points I want, whether you find them pointless or not.

The very simple fact is if you want a fair system, then you need PR. Rigging an already rigged system is not helping our democracy.

Apology accepted Moggy! Never said you couldn't make pointless comparisons! I'll keep calling it pointless though and I'll gladly allow you to keep calling me King!

It's a false comparison and you absolutely know it. It avoids tackling the issue at hand; boundary reviews are long overdue and will happen whether you want them to or not. Complaining that it's not PR is boring because PR systems do usually have boundaries too.

Boundary reviews have happened multiple times in the past here and weren't controversial. It's a natural part of electoral systems across the world. We have the good fortune in the UK that it's independent and transparent which avoids accusations of gerrymandering.

[Moggy]

It's pointless to repeatedly bring up PR. It's not happening and as I mentioned already you would still have periodical boundary reviews in a PR system unless you just made the entire UK a single constituency PR system (which doesn't usually represent the preferred PR system people advocate for) so it doesn't provide a good counter point.

Apologies King David, but I'll bring up any points I want, whether you find them pointless or not.

The very simple fact is if you want a fair system, then you need PR. Rigging an already rigged system is not helping our democracy.

Apology accepted Moggy! Never said you couldn't make pointless comparisons! I'll keep calling it pointless though and I'll gladly allow you to keep calling me King!

It's a false comparison and you absolutely know it. It avoids tackling the issue at hand; boundary reviews are long overdue and will happen whether you want them to or not. Complaining that it's not PR is boring because PR systems do usually have boundaries too.

Boundary reviews have happened multiple times in the past here and weren't controversial. It's a natural part of electoral systems across the world. We have the good fortune in the UK that it's independent and transparent which avoids accusations of gerrymandering.

It's not a false comparison because I am not comparing them.

The Tories are absolutely gerrymandering when it comes to boundary reviews. Do you honestly think they would go ahead with it if it'd give Labour another 10 seats.

We need PR.

The two paragraphs above are not a comparison. They're facts.

[That]

If they're going to update boundaries within the FPTP framework, they should at least try to update them such that the overall result is as close as possible to the major parties having the same votes-per-seat. Maybe it would involve making more constituencies - I haven't done the maths, but off the top of my head I think FPTP with lots of smaller and more homogenous constituencies works out closer to PR.

Another consideration is making sure that constituency sizes reflect the population of each constituency, not the number of voters in each constituency. It's an important distinction because the amount of casework an MP has scales with people, not voters. (In fact I'd wager the constituencies with the lowest registration rates have the most difficult casework.) You could slightly shrink "more difficult" constituencies and slightly expand "easier" constituencies without violating the homogeneity of either. The last time I read up on the Tory boundaries they had deliberately overlooked this to make the work of Labour MPs more difficult.

I think it says a lot that advocating for reform to actually fix the underlying problem is being dismissed as "boring". Liberals have completely acquiesced to all the worst parts of our society.

[Tineash]

GD, your bullshit is so tired and so transparent, I really don't know why you bother. Nobody reading this thread is taken in by it.

[Grumpy David]

It's not a false comparison because I am not comparing them.

The Tories are absolutely gerrymandering when it comes to boundary reviews. Do you honestly think they would go ahead with it if it'd give Labour another 10 seats.

We need PR.

The two paragraphs above are not a comparison. They're facts.

It's a comparison since I mentioned boundary reviews, Drumstick asked a question about it and you compared the fairness of boundary reviews to PR but in the vast majority of PR systems you would have periodic boundary reviews.

My understanding is boundary reviews are meant to take place fairly often (certainly more frequently than once every 20 years) but the ability to vote through the changes (usually linked to Census data) has obviously been very tricky since 2010 so it's been an issue that's had to be postponed. My preference is for consistency of constituency population size with the task of redrawing boundaries decided by bodies independent of the government which is what we have currently.

I think boundary reviews would happen regardless of perceived advantages due to the fact we've already many already. We're generally young enough on GRcade to just not remember any of them.

PR isn't happening anytime soon so needing it and getting it are 2 very different things and unless you advocate for abolishing constituencies, even under PR you still have boundary reviews.

It's not a fact that FPTP is broken. It almost always does exactly what it is meant to do: keep out extreme parties / views, encourage centre grounds to be the battle grounds and provide accountability via the ability to elect a government that can't blame coalitions for failing to deliver manifesto promises.

If the various parties of the left didn't fracture into separate parties and cannibalise each other and instead just all banded under Labour Party they might actually be in a position to get a manifesto that argues for PR and enough votes to make such a manifesto promise into reality.

[Moggy]

If they all banded together under the Labour Party we'd have a two party system and wouldn't really need PR. It'd also be strawberry floating terrible, who the hell would want to be like America?

I've got a feeling you wouldn't be pumping for boundary reviews if it wasn't going to go your way politically...

[Grumpy David]

If they're going to update boundaries within the FPTP framework, they should at least try to update them such that the overall result is as close as possible to the major parties having the same votes-per-seat. Maybe it would involve making more constituencies - I haven't done the maths, but off the top of my head I think FPTP with lots of smaller and more homogenous constituencies works out closer to PR.

Another consideration is making sure that constituency sizes reflect the population of each constituency, not the number of voters in each constituency. It's an important distinction because the amount of casework an MP has scales with people, not voters. (In fact I'd wager the constituencies with the lowest registration rates have the most difficult casework.) You could slightly shrink "more difficult" constituencies and slightly expand "easier" constituencies without violating the homogeneity of either. The last time I read up on the Tory boundaries they had deliberately overlooked this to make the work of Labour MPs more difficult.

I think it says a lot that advocating for reform to actually fix the underlying problem is being dismissed as "boring". Liberals have completely acquiesced to all the worst parts of our society.

Now this is a great post unlike Tineash's sniping.

I would agree that increasing the number of constituencies / MPs would increase the level of representation. Likewise the distinction between registered voters and the actual population is valid too. It's an open consultation so you can get in contact to feed this back to the boundary commission to highlight this.

It's boring for me since I've been debating PR on GRcade for over a decade! I don't view FPTP as broken and thereby not in need of replacing. Compared to 2010, which was prior to the AV referendum (the only time I've not voted since turning 18 due to being at Uni and being registered at home) when you could actually get your hopes up that AV might win which then leads to PR discussions getting more ground. Talking about it in 2020 as if it's realistic anytime soon is wishful thinking rather than actually addressing something that is happening soon: boundary updates.

[That]

Well, I personally find it interesting to think about and advocate for what I would actually like society to look like. I think it's more important to have strong principles and be honest about them, than it is to worry about what the people at the top think is "possible" or "grown-up" or so on.

You might be broadly happy with the system as-is but I'm certainly not and I won't accept that premise!

So if you ask me questions about making boundary changes within our electoral system I would typically first disagree with the premise, because I don't like any part of our electoral system. If you insist then I'm capable of answering detail-oriented questions about it (as above), but at the same time it's a bit frustrating as I can jump to the end of most "sensible" centrist political discussions by applying a simple litmus test - if the Tories want to do it then it's bad.

[DML]

If Scotland leave the UK which is looking likely, then we are stuck with one party under FPTP. And thats not because the Conservatives have done anything to earn it, it would simply be a major Labour leaning part of this country would have left. I honestly think we're trapped with them, unless a Labour leader can create a New Labour style annihilation.

[Grumpy David]

Well, I personally find it interesting to think about and advocate for what I would actually like society to look like. I think it's more important to have strong principles and be honest about them, than it is to worry about what the people at the top think is "possible" or "grown-up" or so on.

If you ask me questions about making boundary changes within our electoral system I would typically first disagree with the premise, because I don't like any part of our electoral system. If you insist then I'm capable of answering detail-oriented questions about it (as above), but saying that I can jump to the end of most "sensible" centrist political discussions by applying a simple litmus test - if the Tories want to do it then it's bad.

I enjoy that sort of discussion too but PR is so far from reality and had been mentioned for 10 plus years on GRcade and was at least a possibility 10 years ago but it's just off the table for a generation (unless the left unifies around the issue).

I would hope this Tory idea is something you might agree with (Litmus test being "Unite against Communists"):

https://www.ft.com/content/0cf70de8-fd10-4a5c-8303-fbd2b0b3811e

UK opens door to citizenship to over 300,000 HK residents

The UK government has opened a path to citizenship for more than 300,000 Hong Kong residents in a bold riposte to China's security crackdown on its former colony.

Dominic Raab, foreign secretary, has pledged to extend visa rights for British National (Overseas) passport holders and facilitate their path to British citizenship unless Beijing rows back from plans to impose national security laws on Hong Kong.

The offer is a striking move from a government that is committed to restricting immigration and shut the door to free entry to the UK for EU citizens after voting through its Brexit deal last year.

It came after China formally approved a plan to impose national security legislation on Hong Kong, following increasing frustration in Beijing at the city’s failure to clampdown on pro-democracy protests. It will mark the first time Beijing has introduced a law that imposes criminal penalties into Hong Kong’s legal code, bypassing the city’s legislature.

About 315,000 people currently hold valid BNO passports, a document issued to Hong Kong residents born before the handover of the territory from UK to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.

Those residents who registered for BNO status before the handover have the right to consular assistance but they are not British citizens and currently only have the right to come to the UK for six months.

Speaking on Thursday, Mr Raab announced this period would be extended to 12 months and “provide a pathway to future citizenship”. UK government officials said it was “the right thing to do”.

Mr Raab said: “If China continues down this path and implements this national security legislation, we will . . . allow those BNO passport holders to come to the UK and to apply to work and study for extendable periods of 12 months and that would itself provide a pathway to future citizenship.”

Some called for him to grant automatic citizenship to the BNOs. Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, welcomed the pledge and called for the government “to go further and recognise the full rights of British nationals”.

The governments of the US, UK, Australia and Canada released a rare joint statement on Thursday condemning Beijing’s latest move, saying it would undermine the “one country, two systems” framework put in place after the handover from British to Chinese rule in 1997.

That framework laid out how Britain would end its century-and-a-half long rule over Hong Kong when its lease terminated and has guaranteed the territory a level of autonomy.

The agreement also ensured that Hong Kong enjoyed rights not seen on the Chinese mainland.

In 1972, a previous Conservative government made a similar gesture when it accepted more than 28,000 Ugandan Asians with British passports after they were banished by the Ugandan President Idi Amin — less than a tenth of the number of Hong Kong residents who would qualify under the new proposals.

A Downing Street spokesman said: “We are deeply concerned about China’s legislation related to national security in Hong Kong. We have been very clear that the security legislation risks undermining the principle of one country, two systems.

“We are in close contact with our international partners on this and the foreign secretary spoke to US secretary [of state Mike] Pompeo last night.

The spokesman went on: “The steps taken by the Chinese government place the Joint Declaration under direct threat and do undermine Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.”

[Grumpy David]

If Scotland leave the UK which is looking likely, then we are stuck with one party under FPTP. And thats not because the Conservatives have done anything to earn it, it would simply be a major Labour leaning part of this country would have left. I honestly think we're trapped with them, unless a Labour leader can create a New Labour style annihilation.

It's only looking likely if they get a referendum, which they won't, as the UK government consider it a settled issue and have repeatedly said they won't allow Scotland to have one and I can't see any situation occurring where they choose to allow it.

Tony Blair's success provided so many Labour MPs that even without Scottish MPs they still had an overall majority so it's not necessarily the case that Scotland leaving the UK would lead to a one party state.

Although Scotland already is a one party state! And would probably remain one if it went independent.

[That]

I would hope this Tory idea is something you might agree with (Litmus test being "Unite against Communists"):

https://www.ft.com/content/0cf70de8-fd10-4a5c-8303-fbd2b0b3811e

Dominic Raab, foreign secretary, has pledged to extend visa rights for British National (Overseas) passport holders and facilitate their path to British citizenship unless Beijing rows back from plans to impose national security laws on Hong Kong.

Ignoring your bait - I don't really support it, no, because it's silly posturing that serves as a performance of imperialism rather than a genuine expression of solidarity with the subjugated.

If I were Foreign Secretary I would simply take a genuine stand for anti-authoritarianism worldwide by opening our borders and dissolving the apparatus of the British nation-state.

If a Tory did that I would admit that I was wrong about them and they were pretty cool and rad.

[Lex-Man]

It'll be interesting to see if many Hong Kong residents take up the offer.

[That]

this mfer said honk kong

[Lagamorph]

[Lex-Man]

Whoops typo.

[Grumpy David]

I would hope this Tory idea is something you might agree with (Litmus test being "Unite against Communists"):

https://www.ft.com/content/0cf70de8-fd10-4a5c-8303-fbd2b0b3811e

Dominic Raab, foreign secretary, has pledged to extend visa rights for British National (Overseas) passport holders and facilitate their path to British citizenship unless Beijing rows back from plans to impose national security laws on Hong Kong.

Ignoring your bait - I don't really support it, no, because it's silly posturing that serves as a performance of imperialism rather than a genuine expression of solidarity with the subjugated.

If I were Foreign Secretary I would simply take a genuine stand for anti-authoritarianism worldwide by opening our borders and dissolving the apparatus of the British nation-state.

If a Tory did that I would admit that I was wrong about them and they were pretty cool and rad.

It's just mirroring your Tory comment.

I'd say we have more of a moral duty to Hong Kong precisely because of Imperialism and our very recent failure in giving the Communists the benefit of the doubt (that economic growth would lead to gradual increases in political freedoms rather than starting a new Cold War).

It's interesting that your anarchist communist (such a contradiction of words!) ideals are actually remarkably close to anarchist capitalism in terms of the absolute free movement of people.

[DML]

If Scotland leave the UK which is looking likely, then we are stuck with one party under FPTP. And thats not because the Conservatives have done anything to earn it, it would simply be a major Labour leaning part of this country would have left. I honestly think we're trapped with them, unless a Labour leader can create a New Labour style annihilation.

It's only looking likely if they get a referendum, which they won't, as the UK government consider it a settled issue and have repeatedly said they won't allow Scotland to have one and I can't see any situation occurring where they choose to allow it.

Tony Blair's success provided so many Labour MPs that even without Scottish MPs they still had an overall majority so it's not necessarily the case that Scotland leaving the UK would lead to a one party state.

Although Scotland already is a one party state! And would probably remain one if it went independent.

They'll get a referendum easily. It'll take time, but its inevitable. Its not England's choice what Scotland does.

[Mafro]

If Scotland leave the UK which is looking likely, then we are stuck with one party under FPTP. And thats not because the Conservatives have done anything to earn it, it would simply be a major Labour leaning part of this country would have left. I honestly think we're trapped with them, unless a Labour leader can create a New Labour style annihilation.

It's only looking likely if they get a referendum, which they won't, as the UK government consider it a settled issue and have repeatedly said they won't allow Scotland to have one and I can't see any situation occurring where they choose to allow it.

Tony Blair's success provided so many Labour MPs that even without Scottish MPs they still had an overall majority so it's not necessarily the case that Scotland leaving the UK would lead to a one party state.

Although Scotland already is a one party state! And would probably remain one if it went independent.

They'll get a referendum easily. It'll take time, but its inevitable. Its not England's choice what Scotland does.

The SNP were drawing up plans for another one but all that's been put on hold. It'll probably be a good few years until it happens given how strawberry floated the economy will be.

[That]

It's interesting that your anarchist communist (such a contradiction of words!) ideals are actually remarkably close to anarchist capitalism in terms of the absolute free movement of people.

Well, we're a whole quarter of the political compass. "Libertarian" originally meant the same as "an-com".

I find "anarcho"-capitalism to be a much less coherent viewpoint. I don't see how a person could want to struggle to abolish the hierarchies of race and nationality and gender and sexuality (and so on), but decide a hierarchy of an elite class of private-owners over ordinary workers is acceptable.