Politicians working together rather than against each other can surely only be a good thing. Having better options for ‘the top jobs’ than have been available in recent years could have saved Britain in so many ways.
We have had PR in Wales for the last 25 years in the Senedd elections. You get two votes, one for your local candidate and another for the party you want in government, and now they are changing it to be even more democratic. This way, my votes feel less of a waste than anything to do with westminster and their unelected house of lords.
Well said Marina, large majorities have been troublesome as history shows. They generally go over the will of the people and our opinion only matters once every 5 years.
It all depends on if the leader of a party who has a Supermajority believes in Democracy or not, the Tory party don't, and they haven't for a very long time.
Top notch marina as always. Where you speak about having more people represented, I also believe the fringe parties become more extremist if they don't get representation. If you don't let people be heard at either end of the political spectrum, that's when people start glueing themselves to roads or others hurling abuse at pride marches.
I fully expect backbenchers probably work harder for their constituency than front benchers whose time would be more split between doing 2 or more roles and spending more time in Westminster. Maybe it's an attack line they will be setting up for the future when backbenchers might not be as present in parliament for certain debates as they will be in their own constituencies having meetings, and sorting out the mess the Tories left behind. I would have fired back at him about Jacob Rees Mogg putting his feet up and having a nap on the front bench.
What happens when Labour go rogue and start acting like the Tories that most so despise? Starmer's already shown that with how he ran his own party. He's not one to tolerate opposing views!
I would prefer a big healthy majority so rebel cabals and single issue interest groups don’t have undue power, we don’t another ERG situation or the Joe Manchin situation in the US senate. On the other hand I’d also prefer the new leadership to be highly tolerant of internal rebellion and to let MPs speak their mind.
The concept of a “supermajority” doesn’t exist in British parliamentary democracy - it is simply the misuse of a word with a completely different meaning to make “very big majority” sound more threatening. Any British government with a majority of much more than 40 (ie unlikely to be whittled away by by-elections defections etc within the life of a parliament), has very nearly unassailable control of the legislative agenda - not for nothing has the system been called “an elective dictatorship”. By that measure, the Conservative government of 2019 also had a “supermajority” - but simply failed to capitalise on it owing to incompetence and shambolic leadership. “Supermajority” has only ever been accurately used with reference to the “minimum % of vote threshold” in some referendums (but not, of course, the one that mattered).
i am old enough to remember the chaos of the Wilson & Callaghan governments which both had thin majorities in fact Callaghan's went into the Lib/Lab pact so for me i would prefer a strong government at least that way you'de know who to blame if they fucked up
The trash that comes out of Tory vine . Just is bollox, it is in the real world is I’ve got more MPs than your party, so super majority is the new bollox.
In our political system, checks and balances are supposed to be provided by the House of Lords. Backbenchers with nothing to do? How about working for their constituents.
I can think of a few upsides for a "supermajority". For one thing, every party has some nut jobs. With a bigger majority you can ignore them. The other thing we can hope for is good-yet-unpopular decisions. For example in order to solve the housing crisis you might need to force a farmer to sell his land or even force a family to sell you their house. It'll make for horrible press, but it needs done.
What we need is to force the property developers, who are sitting on loads of land with planning permission already granted, to actually start building houses, homes that are affordable. Instead they the property developers are just sitting on that land waiting for the prices to go up
How exactly does PR work? could you do a stint co,paring PR to FPTP to the Australian preferential voting system? Then perhaps you could think about using money in stead of ballots as a unit of democracy? AS much as I want democratic reform, I think PR is unsatisfactory... how exactly are the individuals in the participating parties selected? PR leads to strong leadership, which can be desirable in some contexts. Is PR really the best you can come up with Marina? Please think it through x
Utter nonsense,a single person's vote cannot effect the majority, you would need to agree to vote with thousands of others in hundreds of constituencies, in a certain way,just tory panics.
At least with first past the post You won't have racist and fascist Parties in parliament As you would if We had Whatever form of PR we get And it would be coalition government after coalition government Look what happened last time Both have their advantages and disadvantages
Coalition governments are not inherently bad. Spain has had pr for ages and they have a much more stable government than the uk. Ukip or whoever else we may consider distasteful should be represented in Parliament at least people would have real choice
The U.K. should consider becoming a democracy, by introducing PR. It works …
Not for the oligarchs who run us though. If we had democracy Starmer wouldn't be able to do half the corrupt stuff he plans.
Well I'd rather have a Labour extreme super majority than tories governing as a minority government.
Politicians working together rather than against each other can surely only be a good thing. Having better options for ‘the top jobs’ than have been available in recent years could have saved Britain in so many ways.
Is 51.89% a super majority? Asking for a friend.
Worked for brexit
So long as you keep the troublesome backbenchers happy, you can do what you want, regardless of whether your majority is 30 or 300.
We have had PR in Wales for the last 25 years in the Senedd elections. You get two votes, one for your local candidate and another for the party you want in government, and now they are changing it to be even more democratic. This way, my votes feel less of a waste than anything to do with westminster and their unelected house of lords.
Well said Marina, large majorities have been troublesome as history shows. They generally go over the will of the people and our opinion only matters once every 5 years.
A large majority is quite literally the will of the people.
@@paullinnitt5450. Not under FPTP! Becuase the right is split this time, the labour vote could drop to 30% , and they would still get 450 seats.
It all depends on if the leader of a party who has a Supermajority believes in Democracy or not, the Tory party don't, and they haven't for a very long time.
Top notch marina as always. Where you speak about having more people represented, I also believe the fringe parties become more extremist if they don't get representation. If you don't let people be heard at either end of the political spectrum, that's when people start glueing themselves to roads or others hurling abuse at pride marches.
Keep up the good work Marina.
Thatcher had 180 seat majority ( ish). At one point. Then her hands curled up and she got booted out and cried. Ha ha
Funny if it was the other way round everything would be hunky dory
MP are supposed to work for the constituencies, they won't be sitting there waiting for a tea break, they are supposed to be working FULL TIME!
I fully expect backbenchers probably work harder for their constituency than front benchers whose time would be more split between doing 2 or more roles and spending more time in Westminster. Maybe it's an attack line they will be setting up for the future when backbenchers might not be as present in parliament for certain debates as they will be in their own constituencies having meetings, and sorting out the mess the Tories left behind.
I would have fired back at him about Jacob Rees Mogg putting his feet up and having a nap on the front bench.
I'd have fired back smugg doing a TV show on GBeebies 5 days a week @@swanchamp5136
What is he talking about with back benchers? They can go and work in their constituencies.
The answer is proportional representation, simple.
With a bit of luck, Labour backbenchers might actually do work for their constituents rather than sitting in bars and plotting.
Like right-wing Labour backbenchers did under Jeremy Corbyn?
Tory:🎼 run rabbit run, run rabbit run, run, run... 🎶
What happens when Labour go rogue and start acting like the Tories that most so despise?
Starmer's already shown that with how he ran his own party. He's not one to tolerate opposing views!
Starmer had to get rid of the people that caused Labour to bomb in the 2019 Election.
And the tories tolerate opposing views?
@@kevinshanahan6064That would mean expelling himself.
I would prefer a big healthy majority so rebel cabals and single issue interest groups don’t have undue power, we don’t another ERG situation or the Joe Manchin situation in the US senate. On the other hand I’d also prefer the new leadership to be highly tolerant of internal rebellion and to let MPs speak their mind.
Vote Trump in the USA for strong government. So they say. Vote Tory in England for weak government..so they say
The concept of a “supermajority” doesn’t exist in British parliamentary democracy - it is simply the misuse of a word with a completely different meaning to make “very big majority” sound more threatening. Any British government with a majority of much more than 40 (ie unlikely to be whittled away by by-elections defections etc within the life of a parliament), has very nearly unassailable control of the legislative agenda - not for nothing has the system been called “an elective dictatorship”. By that measure, the Conservative government of 2019 also had a “supermajority” - but simply failed to capitalise on it owing to incompetence and shambolic leadership.
“Supermajority” has only ever been accurately used with reference to the “minimum % of vote threshold” in some referendums (but not, of course, the one that mattered).
i am old enough to remember the chaos of the Wilson & Callaghan governments which both had thin majorities in fact Callaghan's went into the Lib/Lab pact so for me i would prefer a strong government at least that way you'de know who to blame if they fucked up
You didn’t raise this when the Conservatives got a majority…
The trash that comes out of Tory vine . Just is bollox, it is in the real world is I’ve got more MPs than your party, so super majority is the new bollox.
You can have mainly free votes, as there will be fewer occasions where the party whip is required.
In our political system, checks and balances are supposed to be provided by the House of Lords.
Backbenchers with nothing to do? How about working for their constituents.
I can think of a few upsides for a "supermajority". For one thing, every party has some nut jobs. With a bigger majority you can ignore them.
The other thing we can hope for is good-yet-unpopular decisions. For example in order to solve the housing crisis you might need to force a farmer to sell his land or even force a family to sell you their house. It'll make for horrible press, but it needs done.
What we need is to force the property developers, who are sitting on loads of land with planning permission already granted, to actually start building houses, homes that are affordable. Instead they the property developers are just sitting on that land waiting for the prices to go up
Smart analysis as always Marina.
How exactly does PR work? could you do a stint co,paring PR to FPTP to the Australian preferential voting system? Then perhaps you could think about using money in stead of ballots as a unit of democracy? AS much as I want democratic reform, I think PR is unsatisfactory... how exactly are the individuals in the participating parties selected? PR leads to strong leadership, which can be desirable in some contexts. Is PR really the best you can come up with Marina? Please think it through x
It gonna be well funny when Marina gets her "fill" of diversity in london. lmao
The greens are saying some very important things.. Not sure about davey's lib dems though.. A bad leader means a bad team
Utter nonsense,a single person's vote cannot effect the majority, you would need to agree to vote with thousands of others in hundreds of constituencies, in a certain way,just tory panics.
At least with first past the post You won't have racist and fascist Parties in parliament As you would if We had Whatever form of PR we get And it would be coalition government after coalition government Look what happened last time Both have their advantages and disadvantages
Coalition governments are not inherently bad. Spain has had pr for ages and they have a much more stable government than the uk. Ukip or whoever else we may consider distasteful should be represented in Parliament at least people would have real choice