General British politics discussion thread

Tom Mann Centuria

Led By Donkeys giving Starmer a gentle reminder of what he's said in the past about electoral reform.

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1696812363805073866?t=29pDWsSLPemxt8IXwVASkQ&s=19

I'd love if he did bring in PR but a probable massive majority suggests he won't.

L1011

PR will only happen if they scrape in and need Lib Dem or SNP support. Roaring majority and they'll just accept ten years in fifteen out again

Tom Mann Centuria

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121046525#Comment_121046525

Yep, spot on unfortunately.

breezy1985

So we have a first ever junior and senior doctor joint strike and over 100 schools facing closure due to unsafe buildings. So parts of the country are literally falling apart.

Karppi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121052916#Comment_121052916

Worse still, some poor buggers' bodies are falling apart, too!

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121052916#Comment_121052916

It would seem that way. It's not just physical structures either. I lost the last modicum of respect I had for the Telegraph today when I saw that they'd described facts and consistency as "old shibboleths".

The next election can't come soon enough. I'm hoping for a Labour/Lib Dem win so we can finally ditch the antiquated voting system we're lumbered with.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121052916#Comment_121052916

Well, don't wanna make the schools too welcoming, do you? Kids might get crazy ideas about fairness or compassion.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121057313#Comment_121057313

Hate to say it but I think the Conservatives winning the next GE is more likely to bring along PR than Labour winning.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121057609#Comment_121057609

If people want their children to go to schools with non killer walls they should just work harder so they can afford Eton.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121057757#Comment_121057757

Can't see any logic to this post.

PommieBast

@breezy1985

Can't see any logic to this post.

Starmer has already come out as anti-PR.

If Labour win 2024 it will be the usual historical rinse-repeat of them being out of office by 2030 and not getting back in until 2045.

If Labour lose 2024 they might actually realise they cannot rely on the zero-sum of Conservative unpopularity and might consider putting PR into either their 2029 or 2034 manifesto.

ancapailldorcha

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121058080#Comment_121058080

Still makes no sense. Labour aren't going to implement a system that means sharing power unless they're pressured to by a coalition partner.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121058080#Comment_121058080

I thought you meant the Conservative party would implement it if they won.

The only way it happens is a coalition and one that learns from the botched Tory/LD vote and forces the major party to hold an honest referendum. Even then I think people will vote for tradition.

I still think it's insane, unprecedented and utter bad faith that Cameron held 3 referenda and then campaigned against all 3.

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121058120#Comment_121058120

It was a total bizarre way of holding referenda, mind boggling in fact. 99% of countries hold referenda on something they want implemented and ratified. Holding a referendum on constitutional change you are not in favour of is weird and arguably even an abuse of democracy.

Cameron was an utter shyster of course and abusing the referendum process.

PommieBast

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121058120#Comment_121058120

The Conservatives will never implement PR as they know FPTP is what has given them power for most of the last 100 years.

PR will only come about when Labour realise it is in their interest. I saw how they spiked the 2011 referendum and if the LibDems just accept a plebiscite on the matter they truly are stupid.

Anyway I really ought not be accessing Boards from the pub....

Sam Russell

There is no need to hold a referendum on PR, as it only needs to be a commitment in their Manifesto. It could also be couched as constitutional reform.

Blair reformed the House of Lords without a referendum. The Supreme Court was set up without a referendum. Referendums are not part of British Constitutional democracy.

In fact, Labour could commit to devising a written constitution, and that could contain anything they would like, being careful to include PR/STV. They could also create a Senate, elected by the people - modelled on the US Senate, but with fixed maximum terms for Senators.

Then put that to the people.

serfboard

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121058176#Comment_121058176

In 1983 the Irish government held a referendum on constitutional change that it was not in favour of, and the Taoiseach at the time (Garret Fitzgerald ) said that he was going to vote against it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_of_Irelan

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121063264#Comment_121063264

1980s Irish politics on abortion or anything with church influence are not something that any democracy should aspire to.

It's really a black mark on your government if anyone says "hey that's like 1980s Ireland"

Strazdas

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121063264#Comment_121063264

And that particular referendum ended up probably being the most controversial and divisive one in Irish history - it took around 35 years to undo the damage of it.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121063798#Comment_121063798

Can't wait for the 2051 Brenter vote 🤣

What the f*ck is going on with the 'Labour' Party?

I don't even think the corpse of Maggie Thatcher would tweet such a thing.

"Worklessness" a driver of child poverty?

Your f*cking teachers and nurses are using foodbanks.

https://twitter.com/JonAshworth/status/1698313788087300185

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121065166#Comment_121065166

"Worklessness" a driver of child poverty?"

Did you not see the word "and". He said worklessness and the drivers of child poverty.

Worklessness is just a rarely used term for unemployment.

Sam Russell

What is 'worklessness'? Is it a new term for unemployment?

Is this an attempt to blame the poor, unemployed, and deprived for their poverty, and lack of employment? Do Labour now include the homeless in this?

Another case of victim blaming?

Peregrinus

Sometimes "workless" is just a synonym for "unemployed". Sometimes it's a slightly wider term — "unemployed" describes someone who is workless because no work, or no suitable work, is available; someone else might be workless because, e.g., they are incapacitated, or have caring duties, or other factors prevent them from seeking or taking up work that is available.

I suspect in this case it's just a synonym for unemployment.

I don't see how this tween is "a case of victim blaming". The great majority of children in poverty in the UK come from households where no adult is working, or where only one adult is working. There's an obvious link between unemployment and poverty, and pointing to that link is hardly blaming the unemployed.

ancapailldorcha

Worklessness Refers to a state where an individual or no one in a household aged 16 and over are in employment, either through unemployment or economic inactivity.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/714730/Work_worklessness_and_health_local_infographic_data_sources_and_references_June_2018.pdf

Seems sensible enough though. 4.2% is the current unemployment rate which is fairly low I would have thought. Doesn't seem like a viable platform on which to mount a campaign.

pixelburp

I daresay those actually battling the economy would opine the problem isn't a lack of work - but the fact inflation is destroying people's pay-cheques and their ability to keep afloat. People working longer, and harder - but not reflective in the actual money heading into their bank account. Children aren't starving because their parents have no work: they're starving because once their parents deduct rent/mortgage, travel costs, childcare and all the other costs, they they then get hammered by shrinkflation making their grocery shop go less further - there's not enough to get feed everyone properly and consistently.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121066336#Comment_121066336

Unemployment rate wouldn't include those in "economic inactivity" though

Peregrinus

The main point about the tweet, and the reason why I think it's a bit evasive, is that Ashworth can't say that he will tackle child poverty by raising benefits, even though this would be the quickest and most effective way to tackle it. He can't say this because his party leader has forbidden anyone to make any unfunded spending commitments this side of the election.

This is a particularly sensitive issue because of the Tory policy of capping child benefit at two children per family. It only applies to children born after April 2017, which means that as time passes it affects more and more families. Tacking child poverty without addressing this cap is going to be, um, difficult.

But, if you have to do it, the way to do it is (1) raise employment rates, and (2) raise wages for the lowest paid workers. Easier said than done, but it is at least something Ashworth is allowed to say he wants to do.

As for the workless/unemployed distinction, 11.7 million Britons aged between 25 and 64 are workless. Of these, only 864,000 are (registered) unemployed. This is dwarfed by the 6.4 million who are caring for family members, the 2.3 million who are sick or disabled and the 1.2 million who are retired. (The rest is accounted for by students and a variety of "other" classifications.)

Your first thought here is probably that there is a bit of massaging of figures going on. It suits politicians to keep the unemployment figures low, so where possible people are steered into other categories. In addition to the 864,000 officially unemployed people in this age group, another 1.2 million in the caring, sick, etc groups want a job. And that's before you look at people in this age bracket who are employed, but under-employed - e.g. people in part-time or casual work who want full-time or permanent work.

But leave the massaging aside. It's obvious that a discourse about unemployment, the unemployed, etc risks focussing on the 864,000 registered unemployed. But it's equally obvious that a discourse about poverty, family poverty or child poverty that just looks at the registered unemployed is going to miss the bulk of the problem.

breezy1985

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121066205#Comment_121066205

Google will tell you in a few seconds but the answer won't fit your narrative about Starter's Labour.

Podge_irl

The rather sad part of all that being that removing the 2-child cap would (currently at least) be relatively cheap and an insanely cost-effective way of bringing numerous children out of poverty.

The sooner the election and the sooner Labour are actually implementing policy the better, rather than this running around being afraid of their own shadow.

Sam Russell

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121066437#Comment_121066437

I have no narrative about 'Starter's' Labour. I just have an issue about the creation of an ill defined word that could mean just about anything.

I should not have to google a word to understand what is meant. And has Google become the defining authority for the political lexicon?