4 ms·

Removal of hereditary privilege is a good thing in principle. However, given the Labour party just gave children the vote, cancelled local elections in conserv

by cbeach 7mo ago

Removal of hereditary privilege is a good thing in principle. However, given the Labour party just gave children the vote, cancelled local elections in conservative-leaning areas, and now they're removing the (traditionally conservative-leaning) hereditary peers, it's starting to feel a lot like the Left are gerrymandering our democracy.

Latty 7mo ago
They gave 16 year olds the vote, and 16 year olds can leave home, marry, join the army, and so on. Why should they not vote? They didn't run pointless elections by request of the very councils that were due for them, because those areas are being redrawn and would have to have fresh elections almost immediately, making the results meaningless. They also gave all the conservative hereditary peers lifetime peerages so they will keep their seats. Your framing of all three of these is obviously intended to mislead.
- cbeach 7mo ago
  > 16 year olds can leave home, marry, join the army, and so on. Why should they not vote? That's a separate argument. My point is Labour's change to the rules is very politically convenient for themselves. In the most recent polling, 32% of 16-17-year-olds would vote Labour, while only 17% of the overall electorate would vote Labour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U... > They didn't run pointless elections by request of the very councils that were due for them, because those areas are being redrawn and would have to have fresh elections almost immediately, making the results meaningless. They allowed individual incumbent councillors to choose whether elections were cancelled. This was politically convenient for the Labour and Tory parties because the Reform Party is new, and while it's polling well ahead of Labour, it doesn't have many incumbent council seats. When a court challenge loomed, Labour quickly u-turned on the latest round of cancellations. Funny how something can seem sensible one day, and can then be u-turned at the slightest whiff of legal scrutiny. > They also gave all the conservative hereditary peers lifetime peerages so they will keep their seats. Can you name a single Conservative hereditary peer that will be given a lifetime peerage in Starmer's reform plan?
  - Latty 7mo ago
    > That's a separate argument. No, you can do things that benefit you electorally, but are also just the right thing to do. Changing the voting system from FPTP would obviously benefit parties other than the major ones, but that doesn't mean it'd be wrong for those parties to do it if they got into power. So the question is if it's good policy, and so I argue it is, if someone can be living by themselves, working in the army or as a full-time apprentice, married, and having a child, they should be able to vote. > When a court challenge loomed, Labour quickly u-turned on the latest round of cancellations. Funny how something can seem sensible one day, and can then be u-turned at the slightest whiff of legal scrutiny. Yes, it's absolutely bad that the government isn't making sure these things are legal before doing them, just as with the Palestine Action proscription. It's also hardly a sign of it being gerrymandering, why would they bother when it's going to give them basically zero advantage, given it would only achieve getting a council that will have no time to actually do anything? The obvious conclusion is they thought it was a waste of money and effort to hold them, but if you have to fight a legal battle over it, it won't actually save any money or effort as that has a large cost, even if it is legal. > Can you name a single Conservative hereditary peer that will be given a lifetime peerage in Starmer's reform plan? BBC reporting as of two days ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxg76rgdp7o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxg76rgdp7o > The BBC understands ministers have offered the Conservatives the chance to retain 15 hereditary members of the House of Lords as life peers. So it's not specific names as it hasn't been finalised, but 15 of them. I accept I misremembered when I said "all", but the point stands: not gerrymandering.
    - cbeach 7mo ago
      > No, you can do things that benefit you electorally, but are also just the right thing to do. Changing the voting system from FPTP would obviously benefit parties other than the major ones, but that doesn't mean it'd be wrong for those parties to do it if they got into power You're reinforcing my point. Minor parties (who might collectively be popular with the electorate) will never be able to change the voting methodology to their advantage because FPTP keeps the incumbents in place, and only the incumbents have the power to choose the voting system. So democracy suffers and the incumbents benefit. Similarly, in this case, allowing children to vote helps the incumbents stay in place despite their party, and their leader being deeply unpopular with the electorate overall. So democracy suffers and the incumbents benefit.
deaux 7mo ago
There is no reasonable definition of "the Left" that includes the British Labour party. The only one that fits would be "to the left of the British Conservative party", but that's as arbitrary as redefining it "to the left of Reform UK" and then starting to call the tories "The Left".
- cbeach 7mo ago
  > There is no reasonable definition of "the Left" that includes the British Labour party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK) > Labour, is one of the two main political parties in the United Kingdom, along with the Conservative Party. It sits on the centre-left of the left–right political spectrum
  - wongogue 7mo ago
    Centre-left doesn’t mean the Left. It just means it’s to the left of the other centrist party (Tories). Just because they lean left doesn’t mean they are the Left, Radical Left, Commies etc
    - hunterpayne 7mo ago
      You do know that actual political scientists don't use left vs right to describe parties. They use terms like libertarian, socialist, etc. They do that because left vs right change from place to place and time to time. From the POV of the US, Labour are communists. In France perhaps they are center or center left or even center right. Even the things you call left vs right don't remain consistent. There are policies in the 50s which were considered left but now would be right and visa-versa. PS You have be to be pretty extreme to think the Labour party isn't "left" enough for you. As in, I'm not sure what else they could do to appease the far left in practice without sever negative consequences for the UK.
      - deaux 7mo ago
        > PS You have be to be pretty extreme to think the Labour party isn't "left" enough for you. As in, I'm not sure what else they could do to appease the far left in practice without sever negative consequences for the UK. Have you looked at actions rather than manifesto? There's very little change in policy actions from the previous non-Labor government, so it doesn't track unless you see the tories as left wing. Which is clearly more extreme.

by cbeach 7mo ago

Latty 7mo ago

They gave 16 year olds the vote, and 16 year olds can leave home, marry, join the army, and so on. Why should they not vote? They didn't run pointless elections by request of the very councils that were due for them, because those areas are being redrawn and would have to have fresh elections almost immediately, making the results meaningless. They also gave all the conservative hereditary peers lifetime peerages so they will keep their seats. Your framing of all three of these is obviously intended to mislead.

cbeach 7mo ago
> 16 year olds can leave home, marry, join the army, and so on. Why should they not vote? That's a separate argument. My point is Labour's change to the rules is very politically convenient for themselves. In the most recent polling, 32% of 16-17-year-olds would vote Labour, while only 17% of the overall electorate would vote Labour. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U... > They didn't run pointless elections by request of the very councils that were due for them, because those areas are being redrawn and would have to have fresh elections almost immediately, making the results meaningless. They allowed individual incumbent councillors to choose whether elections were cancelled. This was politically convenient for the Labour and Tory parties because the Reform Party is new, and while it's polling well ahead of Labour, it doesn't have many incumbent council seats. When a court challenge loomed, Labour quickly u-turned on the latest round of cancellations. Funny how something can seem sensible one day, and can then be u-turned at the slightest whiff of legal scrutiny. > They also gave all the conservative hereditary peers lifetime peerages so they will keep their seats. Can you name a single Conservative hereditary peer that will be given a lifetime peerage in Starmer's reform plan?
- Latty 7mo ago
  > That's a separate argument. No, you can do things that benefit you electorally, but are also just the right thing to do. Changing the voting system from FPTP would obviously benefit parties other than the major ones, but that doesn't mean it'd be wrong for those parties to do it if they got into power. So the question is if it's good policy, and so I argue it is, if someone can be living by themselves, working in the army or as a full-time apprentice, married, and having a child, they should be able to vote. > When a court challenge loomed, Labour quickly u-turned on the latest round of cancellations. Funny how something can seem sensible one day, and can then be u-turned at the slightest whiff of legal scrutiny. Yes, it's absolutely bad that the government isn't making sure these things are legal before doing them, just as with the Palestine Action proscription. It's also hardly a sign of it being gerrymandering, why would they bother when it's going to give them basically zero advantage, given it would only achieve getting a council that will have no time to actually do anything? The obvious conclusion is they thought it was a waste of money and effort to hold them, but if you have to fight a legal battle over it, it won't actually save any money or effort as that has a large cost, even if it is legal. > Can you name a single Conservative hereditary peer that will be given a lifetime peerage in Starmer's reform plan? BBC reporting as of two days ago: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxg76rgdp7o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxg76rgdp7o > The BBC understands ministers have offered the Conservatives the chance to retain 15 hereditary members of the House of Lords as life peers. So it's not specific names as it hasn't been finalised, but 15 of them. I accept I misremembered when I said "all", but the point stands: not gerrymandering.
  - cbeach 7mo ago
    > No, you can do things that benefit you electorally, but are also just the right thing to do. Changing the voting system from FPTP would obviously benefit parties other than the major ones, but that doesn't mean it'd be wrong for those parties to do it if they got into power You're reinforcing my point. Minor parties (who might collectively be popular with the electorate) will never be able to change the voting methodology to their advantage because FPTP keeps the incumbents in place, and only the incumbents have the power to choose the voting system. So democracy suffers and the incumbents benefit. Similarly, in this case, allowing children to vote helps the incumbents stay in place despite their party, and their leader being deeply unpopular with the electorate overall. So democracy suffers and the incumbents benefit.

deaux 7mo ago

There is no reasonable definition of "the Left" that includes the British Labour party. The only one that fits would be "to the left of the British Conservative party", but that's as arbitrary as redefining it "to the left of Reform UK" and then starting to call the tories "The Left".

cbeach 7mo ago
> There is no reasonable definition of "the Left" that includes the British Labour party. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK) > Labour, is one of the two main political parties in the United Kingdom, along with the Conservative Party. It sits on the centre-left of the left–right political spectrum
- wongogue 7mo ago
  Centre-left doesn’t mean the Left. It just means it’s to the left of the other centrist party (Tories). Just because they lean left doesn’t mean they are the Left, Radical Left, Commies etc
  - hunterpayne 7mo ago
    You do know that actual political scientists don't use left vs right to describe parties. They use terms like libertarian, socialist, etc. They do that because left vs right change from place to place and time to time. From the POV of the US, Labour are communists. In France perhaps they are center or center left or even center right. Even the things you call left vs right don't remain consistent. There are policies in the 50s which were considered left but now would be right and visa-versa. PS You have be to be pretty extreme to think the Labour party isn't "left" enough for you. As in, I'm not sure what else they could do to appease the far left in practice without sever negative consequences for the UK.
    - deaux 7mo ago
      > PS You have be to be pretty extreme to think the Labour party isn't "left" enough for you. As in, I'm not sure what else they could do to appease the far left in practice without sever negative consequences for the UK. Have you looked at actions rather than manifesto? There's very little change in policy actions from the previous non-Labor government, so it doesn't track unless you see the tories as left wing. Which is clearly more extreme.