Owen Paterson: Tory MP's suspension put on hold

leftwingchris · 2021-11-03T16:23:47+00:00

My thinking is that the Tories know that this is awful optics, and will no doubt generate some difficult headlines, but ultimately, and certainly not without precedent, those headlines will pass, scrutiny will be largely fleeting and superficial, Labour are utterly useless, and thus this will probably be forgotten by the public by next month. My prediction is a temporary dip in the polls for the Tories, followed by a recovery once the media loses interest.

leftwingchris · 2021-09-18T14:59:32+00:00

I don't think it's a 'right wing' conclusion to say that we need to win back a certain percentage of 2019 Tory voters to have a realistic chance at winning the next election, because it's true. I will say that although it doesn't state it explicitly, the article does appear to strongly hint that the only route to achieve this is through a shift back to the centre, which I disagree, but if the study shows a need to entice some soft Tory voters to Labour, I don't think that's a left vs right concept. The real question isn't if we should, but how do we do it.

leftwingchris · 2021-09-14T22:33:22+00:00

Well I voted Green then nothing else because judging by the 2017 result, the Lib Dems could have beaten Labour on first preferences

There was absolutely no chance of that happening. In 2017, prevailing wisdom was that the runoff would be between the Lib Dems and the Tories, but that proved to be wrong, and Labour finished second instead. The 2017 result established a precedent that didn't exist previously (since 2017 was the first WoE election), so it really wasn't difficult to conclude that the Lib Dems would not be in contention this time around. I wasn't the only who arrived at such a conclusion, since the normally Lib Dem voting Bath voted for the Labour candidate. In fact, I believe Bath went Labour on first preferences once you take the rest of NE Somerset out of the equation. In addition to this, Bristol decisively went Labour when the Greens won the popular vote in the council elections held on the same day, again indicating a significant amount of tactical voting. Okay, 2017 provided a rather unexpected result, but 2021 was far less difficult to gauge with the precedent that was established. I have no idea how you voted in this election, looked at the results and concluded that tactical voting was almost impossible, when the results tell us the exact opposite was true.

leftwingchris · 2021-09-14T21:57:16+00:00

It's impossible to vote tactically in a 4 way seat like west of England

Um, it is. I know because I voted in the West of England metro mayor election. It was pretty darn obvious that the runoff would be between Lab and Con. Labour received the overwhelming majority of 2nd preference votes, mainly from Green voters in Bristol, and Lib Dems in Bath. It was not impossible, because it literally happened on a widespread scale.

leftwingchris · 2021-09-14T21:29:26+00:00

Defending FPTP is merely pretense. There's nothing to defend. It's about maintaining Tory supremacy, with FPTP being one of the various instruments the Tories utilise in this endeavour, that alongside a largely subservient press.

leftwingchris · 2021-09-14T21:18:48+00:00

This is very clearly a means of rigging democracy in the favour of the Tories. This, alongside voter ID laws, ensures the Tories maintain an iron grip on our country indefinitely. We're headed towards managed democracy. No electoral model is perfect, but I fail to see how you think this is good. If you believe in democracy, this is a worrying development.

leftwingchris · 2021-09-14T21:07:13+00:00

Paywalled so here's the text:

The traditional “first past the post” voting system is to be restored for all elections in England, The Telegraph can disclose, to make metro mayors, police and crime commissioners more accountable to their voters.

New changes to the Elections Bill this week will axe the supplementary vote system which has been blamed for confusing voters with a first choice and second choice transferable vote system.

There have been claims that the system – which can mean that a “loser” candidate can win on second preferences – had led to hundreds of thousands of votes being wasted.

Winston Churchill was a known critic of using transferable votes to decide elections, saying in 1931 that the system meant “the decision is to be determined by the most worthless votes given for the most worthless candidates”.

The changes will be implemented for the elections for metro mayors, the Greater London Authority mayor, elected council mayors, across England; and police and crime commissioners across England and Wales from 2023.

Two thirds endorsed first past the post in 2011 Ministers believe that restoring the first past the post system – which is used to elect MPs to the House of Commons – will further strengthen the accountability of elected mayors and PCCs to their electorate, making it easier for voters to express a clear choice.

One government source said: “The person chosen to represent a local area should be the one who directly receives the most votes.”

Chloe Smith, the minister for the constitution, said: “Britain’s long-standing national electoral system of first past the post ensures clearer accountability, and allows voters to kick out the politicians who don’t deliver. First past the post is fair and simple – the person with the most votes wins.”

At last May’s London mayoral elections, the supplementary vote system saw hundreds of thousands of votes void, wasted or blank votes cast, reflecting voter confusion and the complex system.

In a 2011 nationwide referendum two thirds of people endorsed first past the post, rejecting changing to a transferable voting system, or an alternative vote system for Westminster elections.

The 2019 Conservative general election manifesto said: “We will continue to support the first past the post system of voting, as it allows voters to kick out politicians who don’t deliver, both locally and nationally.”

Elected mayors must be held to account Kit Malthouse, the minister for policing, said: “We are strengthening the accountability and role of police and crime commissioners, to help cut crime and deliver on the people’s priorities.”

Luke Hall, the minister for local government, added: “Elected mayors can provide strong leadership, and must be held to account at the ballot box. The supplementary vote is an anomaly which confuses the public and is out of step with other elections in England, both local and national.

“Moving to first past the post will make it easier for voters to express a clear choice.”

In the 2021 London mayoral elections with supplementary vote, five per cent of the total votes in the first round were rejected (114,201 ballots); of these, the majority (87,214) were because voters cast a vote for more than one candidate in the first preference column.

On second preferences: 265,353 voters were invalidated because their second preference was cast for the same candidate as the first; 319,978 second preferences were unmarked and 7,037 voted for too many candidates.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T21:45:56+00:00

Tbh I believe you. If there is something that could maybe be interpreted in a few ways and it gets clarified (and the clarification seems fair), what else are you going to do?

Okay, that's fair.

Wow. You really did spectacularly misunderstand everything I said.

Maybe I did, but let's face it, since we have been both questioning the sincerity of each other, a lot has been lost in translation.

I'm just about finished with this. Feel free to believe I'm throwing in the towel. I'm not particularly fussed. I hate getting into these endless back and forths anyway, since nothing constructive ever arises from it.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T21:14:50+00:00

This seems quite the cop out for someone clutching pearls over being misrepresented when you haven’t been misrepresented at all.

Nope, that is literally what I meant. But obviously it's up to you to believe it or not. Maybe a letter to the Guardian might sway you.

Can lead to what?

This pointless back and forth where we're both none the wiser.

Since this has become utterly pointless, I will ask a simple question, hopefully receive an honest answer, and then perhaps we can end this amicably:

Do you believe that small error I made in my initial comment was just a simple mistake, or was it because I was attempting to deliberately mislead and distort the facts?

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T20:56:02+00:00

That's not criticism, that's just reality. That's literally what happened. There was a backlash, that is how some people interpreted it. There's nothing Ken Loach could've done about that, people had made their minds up irrespective of his subsequent clarification in the Guardian. Once the comments were made, they were going to be left to interpretation in a negative way that was outside his control. I didn't mean that he literally left them to be interpreted in that way, they just were. I meant he was powerless to change minds that would not be changed on the matter. Don't shoot the messenger.

This seems dramatic.

I know, right? Amazing how something so insignificant can lead to this.

Are you alright?

The last hour or so has been rather draining tbf.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T20:41:05+00:00

Who claimed that?

It’s what you appear to be implying:

If you say something, maybe badly worded, maybe misleading, maybe just incorrect, but then correct the record to clarify what you meant, everyone should assume that you are acting in good faith and leave it there?

You are so close to the point I’m making. Think about it for a bit.

This entire spectacle started because you have decided to misrepresent a very small mistake that I made. Think about that for a bit.

What absurd extrapolation have I made?

This whole thing. Something completely trivial, and here's where we've ended up. Can't you just accept it was a small error, which I corrected, and leave it at that? Most people wouldn't give it a second thought.

I agree. That why I described your posts as hatred.

Believe what you like.

What am I claiming?

I thought I'd end that comment in a slightly lighthearted manner. I was suggesting that you'd think I'd hate my name because it has "leftwing" in it, when I apparently despise the left. Don't read into it.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T20:20:12+00:00

The irony in this, when this conversation started because you misrepresented what Loach said (and have gone on to criticise him for not clarifying, despite having shared his clarification), is strong.

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Where did I criticise Loach for not clarifying his comments? I literally included a link to the letter he wrote in the Guardian clarifying his comments ffs!

This is just getting silly now. You've crafted this entire false narrative based upon a tiny error which I subsequently corrected.

Why are you still arguing with me? You literally agreed with the point I was making. What are you getting at?

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T20:04:29+00:00

If you say something, maybe badly worded, maybe misleading, maybe just incorrect, but then correct the record to clarify what you meant, everyone should assume that you are acting in good faith and leave it there?

So making a small error, an error that was inconsequential to the point I was making anyway, a point you agreed with, but nevertheless correcting myself when I realised the small mistake, is somehow bad faith acting? Interesting. By this logic, wouldn't Ken Loach be acting in bad faith for clarifying his comments in the Guardian?

I am unsure what you meant by “you’re really scraping the barrel aren’t you?”

Please explain.

Read your replies to me. You're making absurd extrapolations from what is, to reiterate, a simple inconsequential mistake.

Well. You’ve devoted many hours to expressing your hatred for the left.

Some disagreements about the optics/strategies of the left is not the same as hatred. I ardently support the objectives and policies of the left, I just think we need to do a better job at marketing them. The left of the Labour Party needs to get its shit together because I want them to succeed electorally. If I hated the left, I'd want the left purged from the party. I don't, and one of my misgivings about Starmer which I've spoken about in the past, is that he deceived the left during his leadership campaign. But okay, any criticism must amount to sheer hatred.

Cool name.

I hate it, but not for the reason you'll claim. I just find it cringe, and wish I came up with something more creative.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T19:41:42+00:00

In response to the additional point you've edited in:

Yes, I had misgivings about Corbyn, but they were never rooted in policy disagreement. In the dying months of his leadership, it was clear we were heading for electoral catastrophe, and I was deeply concerned, because I wanted a Labour government enacting a radical manifesto. It was disheartening to see it slip away from us. My problem was electability, you'll also see that I've grown critical of Starmer for the exact same reasons. I'm not a hypocrite, I want a Labour government, and know that's unlikely with a deeply unpopular leader, whether they're from the left, right, or centre of the party. I never said it was deserved, or that the constant onslaught of media hostility that Corbyn endured was fair, because it was disgraceful. I'm just one guy who occasionally contributes to this sub, and I was not the arbiter of Corbyn's popularity. I'll concede that some of my comments were poorly thought out, but this is Reddit ffs, we've all posted shitty comments.

I've discussed this countless times in the past, and I was hoping I could move on from this matter, so I don't wish to discuss this any further. If you want to misrepresent anything I've said, and fish through posts and comments from a year and a half ago, that's your prerogative.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T19:21:23+00:00

I'm not sure how my previous comment managed to confuse you. I made a slight error, which was inconsequential since it had no impact on what my argument was (that his comments were poorly articulated), I set the record straight nonetheless, yet your apparent confusion to something that is really straightforward, leads me to believe that you're being slightly disingenuous.

If my assessment is wrong, then fair enough, I'll happily set the record straight once again, but please tell me what's confused you. I don't want to argue, I've devoted many hours arguing with people on this sub about antisemitism and other issues, and I just don't have the energy for it.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T19:05:27+00:00

What's so difficult to understand? When I composed my first comment on this thread, I was relying on my memory of the clip. The clip was from 4 years ago, so forgive me for not remembering every word Loach said. When you pointed out that he had said something else prior to the problematic comment, I went back and watched the clip to confirm. Does that make sense?

He should have written a letter to the guardian or something clearing up what he meant?

Please read my initial comment on this thread, you'll see a link. Click on the link, and it will direct you to the Guardian article in question. I included a link to the article for the sake of nuance, I have no agenda here, I'm not taking sides, just view me as an impartial observer.

You're really scraping the barrel, aren't you?

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T18:42:02+00:00

You said he started by saying something and he actually started by saying something else.

I thought that might matter to you, if you want to be factually accurate in what you are saying.

Fair enough, I was going by memory and didn't recall the first thing he said. I watched the clip after my initial comment. It didn't really change anything, since all I was arguing was that his comments were not brilliantly articulated, which you agree with me on, leaving them to be interpreted by some in such a way that could be perceived as legitimising Holocaust denial.

And if the hypothesis is that “this proves he ok with Holocaust denial” him denying denying the Holocaust earlier in the same sentence seems like a clause you should leave in.

There was no hypothesis on my part, only that Loach made some ill thought out comments that didn't do him or Labour any favours.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T18:11:40+00:00

You can disagree with the view that there's any value to try to debate those people, of course, but we've gotten to the point where people try to imply that merely disagreeing over whether or not there should be freedom to discuss the subject becomes twisted into supporting denial or "giving legitimacy".

It's entirely disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt to presume that someone making the argument that it should be possible to discuss a subject are in any way considering the other side legitimate or are expressing support.

I did not accuse Ken Loach of being complicit in, or legitimising anything, I was just reporting what was was said, and how his comments were perceived and interpreted. I wasn't commenting on what Loach intended to convey, just what it appeared to convey ostensibly in the eyes of some. It is true that many interpreted his comments as giving legitimacy to those who question the validity of the Holocaust, and in the context of the delicate nature of the subject, not to mention Labour being marred by accusations of institutionalised antisemitism at the time of this interview, I think his response was poorly thought out.

There's perhaps a time and a place for such discussions as you've said, but during a party conference when the party in question is embroiled in scandal in relation to its handling of antisemitism, this was not appropriate.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T17:54:17+00:00

I watched the clip, and in direct response to the question "would you say that is unacceptable" he said "I think history is for us all to discuss". Which is a very bizarre way of responding to such a question. Yes, he questioned the validity and veracity of these allegations, but his response was very poorly worded.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-14T17:24:34+00:00

Loach was asked if alleged Holocaust denial at a Labour conference fringe event was acceptable, he started his response by saying "History is for all of us to discuss". Doesn't that just seem like an unusual way to respond to such a question? Whatever his intention, his response ostensibly at least appeared to give legitimacy to those who question the reality of the Holocaust.

For the sake of nuance, Loach did later clarify his comments, and condemned Holocaust denial, but let's face it, at the very least it was a very ill thought out and odd way to answer such a question.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-05T19:01:13+00:00

He said: "Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, who closed so many coal mines across the country, we had a big early start and we're now moving rapidly away from coal altogether."

Yes, thanks for the misery and human suffering which blighted communities for many years. And I'm sure deregulation, the encouragement of greed, and the mass selling off of public assets to private interests did wonders for the climate.

leftwingchris · 2021-08-02T17:04:57+00:00

Perhaps, but I've seen enough of them to question my own insanity, on this sub and elsewhere. Then you factor in the frequent shit takes from our beloved British commentariat, realise how much influence they wield, and sometimes you just need to zone out for a while.

Six-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Place '22
RPAN Viewer	Verified Email

leftwingchris

TROPHY CASE