Comments by "" (@col.hertford9855) on "Richard J Murphy" channel.

  1. Parties chose the candidates already. The German system is good. You have an AV chosen local representative, then the rest of the house is made up from PR lists. Also, the party name and policies are far more important than the person you are electing. Look at the Tory Geoffrey Cox, he barely spends anytime in his constituency and still got returned. IDS and Jeremy Hunt are good local MPs who have done terrible things to the country, looking at the bigger picture rather than the “good for a Tory” local issues may actually be better for our democracy.
    1
  2. Also, I don’t want to have to compromise my vote by taking a second choice. I should get representation from my first choice if they achieve a high enough vote share nationally. This is just tactical voting by another name.
    1
  3.  @simonjohn9525  it assumes a preference. If you don’t have a preference for other parties, then it’s a silly system.
    1
  4. Hi Richard, as a long term Liberal Democrat (other than the Clegg years), I find myself gaming the system and voting Labour as the only likely “left” wing choice. Liberals got far fewer votes this time as there was a lot of tactical voting. I’m sure some greens and Labour supports also did this, though from the results, it seems like greens did this less. I agree that reform are a loathsome party but they need representation. I expect if they did that we would see more alliances against them, even with centre right parties. We need true PR. I really like the German system with a local representative chosen via a plurality, then regional lists system using PR. Do you have a preference of system?
    1
  5.  @billB101  I did read it
    1
  6.  @billB101  there manifesto was meaningless devoid of detail. It was light on anything to suggest direction of travel.
    1
  7.  @OneAndOnlyMe  that’s an objective not a vision. They are light on how to do it. Currently they just seem to be clinging to the policies of the previous 14 years.
    1
  8.  @OneAndOnlyMe  that’s an economic plan, not a vision, and its no different to any other economic plan from government since the coalition.
    1
  9. Trump referred to himself as that. Odd move.
    1
  10. And a lot of the people supporting him are accelerationalist, they are trying to hasten changes to bring on the next form of society. Most of them have luxury doomsday bunkers to watch the end from.
    1
  11. That got the same intellectual rigor as saying the rich shouldn’t pay. All should pay their fair share.
    1
  12. @ yes. It’s essential to maintaining a functioning society. Anymore child like questions?
    1
  13. People always band together in tribes. It’s humans great evolutionary advantage, so stopping formal alliances will just create informal opaque ones.
    1
  14.  @georgedaniel1189  I have a few challenges with support for the greens tbh. Their stance on nuclear power is anti science and based on fear mongering in the 1960s. It makes no sense espically given the volumes produced, the ability to recycle cutting the radioactive phase to 200 years, and safe long term storage being availble. It’s odd because it’s less environmentally damaging than hydro, solar or wind that destroy local habitats. There attitude to nuclear weapons is naive, I think the Lib Dem’s idea to push for multinational disarmament is more sensible (as it seems to be off the table currently globally). And finally, having MPs vote on their conscience is all very well and good, but I’m not sure who this would work in a larger party. When it was Caroline, it was easy to be consistent. With a larger group it could easily become more fracturous, and difficult to govern.
    1
  15.  @williamholden9705  it’s the first past the post system. To think otherwise is just naive.
    1
  16.  @georgedaniel1189  I would take the greens “strong” vote with a pinch of salt as the vote share of the LibDems was significantly down, mostly due to tactical voting. Greens were also sharing a bunch of disinformation about being the tactical vote in at least one area where they were no where close when considering total votes cast. Edit: but Labour need to be careful, as next election they may find they need coalition partners from the left.
    1
  17. @ except that’s utterly not true. The money is created from thin air (MMT) and reinvested into the American arms industry. Bidens managed to keep inflation low and reduce the deficit, all the while while spending on the IRA and supporting Ukraine.
    1
  18. Murdoch hates starmer. I don’t think starmer owes him anything.
    1
  19. Hi Richard, I saw Thorsten Bell get a ministers brief this week. Foreshadowing maybe? Given his work both under the last government and the resolution foundation, he seems a creditable option for a plan B. Albeit with a neoliberal head on the shoulders.
    1
  20.  @mattcameron9349 Obama made a statement of fact on the US Government’s position. A US Head of State stating government policy when asked really should be the normal state of affairs. Musk is not in the same position and actively is working against our nation as a private citizen.
    1
  21. I like the more positive approach Richard. You are more likely to get traction with the people who count by encouragement than censure. 🥕 🦯 🫏 🌹
    1
  22. The only red tape that needs removing is the ones implemented post Brexit. Most are vital consumer and employee protections. As Richard say, wealth income inequality is the only way to solve the issue. It’s the only one that works.
    1
  23. @ can you show your calculations please?
    1
  24. Voter turnout out is already a massive issue, do you think this will make it better?
    1
  25.  @xtc2v  fascism is far more comfortable at gaining power via elections as it’s always supported by Capitalism.
    1
  26.  @gio-oz8gf  well said! My constituency is 58% tory, I may as well not vote (but I still do).
    1
  27.  @skasteve6528 Britain was heavily under Russian influence too until the invasion of Ukraine.
    1
  28. I think working out the remit of the second chamber is a better idea. It’s supposed to provide expert scrutiny of legislation (and it does a good job on this), so having appointments isn’t bad per se. The question is should we let them stop legislation or not. I mean they can’t at the moment, only stall it. The bigger issue is not having a constitutional safe guard, because our head of state is “ceremonial”. We need someone who can actually flex constitutional muscle if the Parliament breaks the constitution (like the illegal proroguing of parliament). The Irish system works well, as the few constitutional responsibilities are solely around preserving the constitution. Everything else is ceremonial.
    1
  29.  @barerfont  not at all, it’s inextricably linked. if it’s a second legislative chamber, it needs to be elected or it has no democratic legitimacy. If it’s a chamber of experts, it needs to be professional appointments or they can’t give the expert scrutiny that’s required to make good law.
    1
  30.  @barerfont  sorry if I gave you the idea of us agreeing because I don’t at all. av was unpopular because it’s unrepresentative of voters. It’s just a way of maintaining the current two party system via a sleight of hand. We had a referendum on this and it was roundly rejected. It’s as fundamentally flawed as FPTP. I find the idea of a second legalisative chamber completely pointless if I’m honest. The countries that have one it seems to just be unnecessarily complicated extra layer of governance. The core role of the lords as it is, is to scrutinising legislation since it lost the highest court role, and this adds a lot of value to the legalisative process. Your idea to remove this in favour of a second elected chamber which honestly seems to have little to no obvious value. I’d rather have devolved assembly’s or even parliaments dealing with local issues and have a more federal set up (but more like Germany rather than the US). Finally, other countries with PR also manage to maintain local representation. I’ve never understood the argument this can’t happen under a PR system.
    1
  31.  @229andymon  that’s to be honest why I would like a federal system, even is Scotland left first. Ideally all members would have right of exit like in the EU,and a clear say. Possibly even some level of veto. WRT to the referendum, I don’t think there should be an option to have referendum every five minutes because of the disruption and economic chaos it would cause. But there should be a way of Scotland (without reference to the rest of the UK) being able to call one per a sensible period of time. Maybe like in NI? Where there’s a very specific public opinion criteria in the GFA. I also think England, Wales, and NI should have the same rights too. We need to stop fudging around with special exceptions and treat the home nations equally at the national level.
    1
  32.  @229andymon  possibly, your right. I don’t think the English are particularly unified as maybe it’s though by some. My experience is people tend to have views on economics and social issues and it doesn’t matter where you are from, you they generally agree on this basis. I think breaking the hegemony of the Tories and to a lesser extent Labour could work wonders. I think that’s one of the main reasons Scotland has such a vibrant democracy.
    1
  33. And I for one support our new corporate overlords.
    1
  34. On a more serious note, why do elected politicians keep abducting their responsibilities to others and destroy the power of the state.
    1
  35. On a more serious note, why do elected politicians keep abducting their responsibilities to others and destroy the power of the state.
    1
  36.  @GetGwapThisYear  I think that’s a pretty balanced answer thanks. Though I think it’s not the only concern with joining, the direction of travel of some EU states problematic (though Labour seem to want to mimic some facist migration policies).
    1
  37. Oligarchs like natural resources to exploit.
    1
  38. Starmer will have the opportunity to make a real difference to peoples lives. Hopefully he will take it.
    1
  39. Hello Richard, I was wondering what your thoughts on using taxation to remove money, and the grossly unequal political amount of political power that comes with it, from the wealthiest in society? Would this be a good thing or a bad thing?
    1
  40.  @imbonkers3629 how are they still grooming if they are in prison?
    1
  41.  @vgstb  you have successfully copied the title of a work by newton called “Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica”, this outlines his theory of mechanics.
    1
  42. The eu election system in the Uk was ironically the best I’ve seen.
    1
  43. This is a rather silly comment. If people don’t know the rules, who can they follow them? They don’t have a judge sat on their shoulder. Maybe we should stop selling manuals and judges can tell people how to work equipment too?
    1
  44. Generally it’s always been better to have an MP within the government. It’s considered easier to raise issues and get remediation if it’s your own side. I’d say it’s a more politically astute choice and not an emotive one. I mean, what will Corbyn actually do as an MP? Occasionally ask a question? He’s never really bothered with engaging in most aspects of Parliament and is unlikely to get on any committees.
    1
  45.  @keithparker1346 yes, but there is very little push back on these claims. Everything stated by tech bro oligarchs is accepted as fact in the MSM.
    1
  46.  @benjaminford9932  exactly, the current economic situation seems to be entirely down to the vast amount of money just sitting in assets, not circulating in the economy or removed via taxation, and thus the consumer has no money to allow them to consume.
    1
  47. It’s more about the degrees of being *ucked…
    1
  48.  @Amonynous he listed a few solutions in the video. Maybe you should watch it.
    1
  49.  @perkinscrane  the only reason to go into coalition was with the Tories was to implement PR and Clegg screwed it up. A lot of voters felt betrayed that he accepted the AV referendum not a PR one. Left leaning Libdems were already disenchanted after Clegg dragged the party right. Honestly most I know went to the greens, not Labour.
    1
  50.  @perkinscrane  you mean the Libral Democrats? I was Liberal Democrat voter back then, and followed with great interest. There was a lot of other information if you had cared to ask Lib Dem’s MPs at the time. But in broad brush strokes, you are fine for large swaths of the population to be disenfranchised by a corrupt system that redraws boundaries to favour the main parties. And a party can achieve total control with only a plurality of the vote? I didnt agreed with UKIP on so many level, but it was utterly disgusting that they had no representation in parliament in spite of getting a similar share of the vote to the Lib Dem’s. And compared to the amount of votes, Labour and Conservatives got more MPs compared to overall vote share. Many countries manage to have successful coalition governments, and we have had two since 2010, first under Cameron and then May (with the DUP), so I don’t see it as a massive issue. It’s just a childish scare mongering tactic by those who could lose power and influence.
    1