RayC

Still too early in this parliament to know which of the backbenchers or lesser-known ministers will make a name for themselves. To repeat, I don't see Starmer going anytime soon: The bookies have Reeves, Burnham and Streeting as the favourites to succeed Starmer. Personally - based only on hearing them in interviews, etc - I like Reeves but don't rate Streeting very highly. Of course, Burnham is not a MP but he seems competent. As a Londoner, he is too much of a 'professional Northerner' for my taste although I guess that is part of his job. John Healey keeps a low profile but impresses me whenever he talks. By no means an exhaustive list and, no doubt, I will change my mind as this parliament progresses but there's a few suggestions for you.

As you are no doubt aware, Starmer was a barrister and head of the CPS before entering politics. While I don't think that all middle manager have the same character traits, neither of those jobs are middle management. Whether Starmer has changed Labour for the better is debatable, but he has changed it and Labour has a thumping majority in parliament as a result. Do you really believe that Labour would have won under Corbyn or Abbott? As I said previously, you can 'never say never' but I think that the chances of Starmer being replaced as PM in this parliament are extremely slim; however, assuming that he is, do you really think that there is not, at least, one talented individual amongst the 404 current Labour MPs who could replace him? I think that you are letting your bias colour your judgement.

How on earth can you be so confident about Starmer's character unless you know him? To state the blindingly obvious, unforeseen events can change things. In December 2019, no one thought that Johnson would serve less than a full term as PM, so Starmer might not last the course. However, having delivered Labour a massive parliamentary majority, as of now there is no chance of him not being PM in 6 months time. It is no more than wishful thinking on your part to see him gone.

"Once the larger objective is secured .. (the Ukrainians) ... can dealt with"? I thought your fundamental concern was to prevent even more loss of life, and save more poor Ukrainian women and children from becoming widows and orphans? Or maybe I do you an injustice? Perhaps by "dealt with" you imagine Russian soldiers sitting around the campfire with their conquered Ukrainian counterparts, calmly explaining that they have now free and have been liberated from the tyranny of the Nazis in the Ukrainian government? (To avoid any doubt, this is sarcasm).

The demonstrators in your photo belong to 'The Communist Party of Great Britain' not the 'Labour Party'. And to preempt an obvious response: No, they are not one and the same.

Usual nonsense. France does not "let in" illegal immigrants they enter ... err ... illegally. France has land borders totalling +/-2,700km. I'm sure that Macron or Barnier will be keen to know your plans for policing such a large area.

Or "Let's move to Thailand, complain about how our countries are declining, blame the immigrants for all the nations' woes (oh, the irony), demand stronger policing and then complain when they get it".

I still do not understand the problem. Political parties are often criticised - quite rightly - for being less than forthcoming about how they would govern if elected. The SPD, CDU and Greens made clear that they would not enter into a coalition with the AfD. It is as much a declaration of policy as one which says we will cut taxes. If any of these parties were to now enter into government with the AfD, they would be betraying their voters. Yes, given the stated policy of the other parties. The fact that the UK electorate voted against introducing PR does not make FPTP any more democratic.

🤦Where to begin? So you believe that Party 'A' which, for example, campaigns on a platform of lower taxation and lower public spending and then finishes second in an election behind Party 'B', which had campaigned on a diametrically opposite policy platform, should be forced to form a government with Party B? It doesn't work in theory and it is even less likely to work in practice. Absolutely and utter cods, not least because the voters in Thuringia were well aware before they cast their votes, that the other parties would not collaborate with the AfD. There is nothing normal about forcing political parties to work together if they do not wish to. THAT is anti-democratic. You stated that you favoured FPTP. I showed that there is, more often than not, a 'democratic deficit' attached to such systems. I used the example of the latest UK general election - where the Labour Party polled 33% of the vote but won 66% of the parliamentary seats - to illustrate my point. This was made very clear in my previous post. You are either trolling or being deliberately obtuse because you know that your argument is inherently flawed. Already answered in previous paragraph and posts. (Please don't mention the House of Lords again. It is completely irrelevant, not least because it is an unelected chamber). This is clearly nonsense which deserves to be sanctioned.

Fair enough. You may be right. Time will tell whether Harris has a realistic and workable plan to implement price controls or whether she is just spouting empty rhetoric.

Actually you should be supplying the definition not me, as you are one claiming that the policy is Marxist. There are no end of PhD dissertations devoted to the question: 'What is Marxism?', so I'm not going to attempt it here. I replied to you separately giving examples of where I believe price controls are appropriate.

I am not in favour of price controls as a rule but they have their place in a mixed economy. Many utility companies in the UK are publicly listed e.g. water companies, power companies, etc. Many are also monopolies. Do you think that they should be free to charge whatever price they like? Only an idiot would think so.

I'm not sure why you keep drawing an analogy between the US in 2024 and revolutionary France of the 1790s. There are plenty of more recent examples of price controls e.g. the privatised utilities in the UK. Harris has given few details about how her plan would work and leaves herself open to justifiable attack for that very reason. However, one would think that she would not be stupid enough to set any price ceiling below the cost of production as the French government of 1793 did.

Hunger, due to a failed harvest, played a large part in the French Revolution. However, it was not price fixing but laissez-faire economics which was the problem i.e. a shortage of bread lead to an increase in its' prices which many in the Third Estate could not afford. This, together with a general dissatisfaction with the monarchy and political order, formed the catalyst for the Revolution. By definition, price controls will control inflation. However, whether they can be used to fix inflation or are desirable and sustainable in anything but the short term is very debatable.

The economic illiterates are those who see no role for the State in the management of the economy and a nation's resources.

So anyone who believes that price controls might sometimes be necessary i.e. in the public interest, is by definition a Marxist?

'She's a Marxist', 'he's a Marxist', 'the Democrats are all Marxist'. The return of Mccarthyism.

In the unlikely event that anyone is interested, you may wish to know that the author has produced another colouring book (presumably to complement this one on his "Political Philosophy"?). https://sandru.com/

If at first you don't succeed .... There is a thread about the election in Thuringia elsewhere on the forum where this view is debunked.

Are you trolling? Why don't you address my original question directly? How is it fair and democratic that a party which wins 34% of the vote gains 63% of the seats in parliament? In the case of this election in Thuringer, imo as the party which won the largest share of the vote, the AfD should be given the opportunity to form a coalition government. However, as that the other parties have already declared that they will not work with the AfD, an AfD-led government will not occur. Given this, another solution will have to be found. As I stated previously, it is the prerogative of each individual party to decide who it will - or will not - work with. There is nothing undemocratic about this process. Do you believe that the other parties should be forced to work with the AfD?

That has absolutely no bearing on the point which I made i.e that FPTP is undemocratic. The UK government is formed by the party which wins an overall majority in the lower house (House of Commons). Fortunately, the upper house (House of Lords) only has delaying powers, as election to it is even more undemocratic: it is by appointment. Not since 1935 has a government in the UK won a majority of the vote. You are evading the issue i.e. that the FPTP is undemocratic.

A matter of opinion of course but I completely disagree. In the case of the UK, the recently elected Labour government gained 33% of the votes cast, but won 63% of the parliamentary constituencies. How is that fair and democratic?

Of course they haven't been. Anyone eligible to vote in this election could cast their vote for whatever party they wanted. The AfD won 34% of the vote. They needed 50.1% of the vote to be able to form a government. They fell short and are therefore unable to do so. I really can't understand why you find this simple arithmetic concept so difficult to grasp. However, I do agree that the toilet is probably the best place for AfD votes.

No voters have been disenfranchised.

There are plenty of alternative systems e.g. first past the post, STV, etc. All have their flaws What system would you suggest?