Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
Imagine it's late 2024 and the Labour Party is able to win the general election with a majority on par with the Blair in 1997.
Would a Labour Government be willing to take radical action for the good of the nation?
Within the first 100 days of a Labour government, if a Starmer administration was to legislative to make the following changes below, it would set in stone the future prospects of the nation.
In 2019, the election result was as follows:
Conservatives 365.
Labour 203.
Liberal Democrats 11
SNP 48
Plaid Cymru 2.
Green Party 1.
Brexit Party 0.
The same results adopting PR would have resulted in the following:
Conservatives 312.
Labour 221.
Liberal Democrats 59.
SNP 30
Plaid Cymru 5.
Green Party 3.
Brexit Party 3.
Therefore, in the first 100 days of a Labour Government PR was to be legislated for, on the basis that it was a constitutional change requiring a 'super majority' of at least two-thirds of the Commons to revoke, our political system would change forever.
At the same time, if this change was combined with a reduction of voting age from 18 to 16, it is foreseeable that the UK would be have a period of near permeant Labour led coalitions.
Therefore, the first 5 years of a Labour administration could result in changes which any future administration, even after period of unpopularity, would find difficult to repeal.
Let's take the European issue head on.
The first 100 days of a Labour administration could enter into enter discussions with the European Union, join the schengen zone and adopt the Euro, with the pound being phased out over a period of 6 months.
Then, at the heart of Europe once again, the UK could become a leader in the pursuit of a European Army (as a replacement for NATO), with annual budgets for defence spending decided jointly by the EU bloc versus individual nation states.
It would be clearly obvious that such a policy change would be deeply unpopular amongst a section of the UK voting public, although in combination with the changes to voting age and the adopting of PR, any future government would likely still have Labour at its core.
Then over the course of a 5 year parliament, the UK could advocate for an entire shift from member state tax and spend proposals to a BLOC approach.
Taxation rates across EU member states could be harmonised over the course of 5 years, with concepts such as debt as a percentage of GDP being shifted away from nation states to the EU bloc as a whole, a BLOC with a population of nearly 500 million which would have a single debt to GDP rate.
The same approach could also be taken regarding government spending, with spending on healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and state provisions being dealt with on a BLOC wide basis.
This approach would enable the UK to adopt a more area specific approach, with local authorities and councils being the main body in addressing local issues and the House of Commons concentrating solely on addressing local matters by working as an agent with EU more widely to address the concerns of councillors at the local level.
Then as we approach the end of a 5 year parliament, the new EU treaty could be embedded as a constitutional piece of legislation which required at least 3rd of the house of commons support to repeal.
16 million or so voted to remain in the EU with 17.5 million voting to leave back in 2016.
That 17.5 million is split between a number of parties at the moment and even if we take a direct 52% versus 48% analysis, it would be near impossible for a large 'anti EU movement' to repeal any changes made unless support exceeded 60% and in combination with the changes in voting age, I would imagine this figure would be even more difficult to achieve.
Therefore meaning the UK would be at the heart of a new and reformed EU BLOC which dealt with nearly all matters of law plus fiscal & monetary policies.
I am aware that a large number of those within the UK could vote to send 'Anti EU' candidates to the EU parliament in attempts to undermine the BLOC, in a similar way to how the UK has previously with the Brexit Party and UKIP - parties which didn't help shape the European Union but actively sought to leave the BLOC.
The way to prevent such a situation happening again is to have a BLOC wide approach regarding individual candidates in member states - ie the commission votes on who shall be the two candidate for a member state country and then member states would be able to vote between 2 choices.
Over the course of 10 years or longer, the aim could be to educate all school students in a second language - i.e English, French and Spanish only so that after the next generation of kids graduate, the whole of the EU would have one single language.
Then, finally after a full 15-20 years of integration, after many now speak one single language and all member states are fully integrated into an EU BLOC as one, elections could take place on a BLOC wide basis, with all member states voting for 1 or 2 candidates and directly election an EU president for all nations, thus eliminating the need for national governments and having a single local level councillor approach across all nations in Europe.
So imagine.
In the next 20 years, if Labour play their cards right, we could be voting for a European President who would lead our part of the world into the next generation - directly elected by all member state countries and thus contributing to the EU becoming one of the most democratic political unions in the world.
Would a Labour Government be willing to take radical action for the good of the nation?
Within the first 100 days of a Labour government, if a Starmer administration was to legislative to make the following changes below, it would set in stone the future prospects of the nation.
In 2019, the election result was as follows:
Conservatives 365.
Labour 203.
Liberal Democrats 11
SNP 48
Plaid Cymru 2.
Green Party 1.
Brexit Party 0.
The same results adopting PR would have resulted in the following:
Conservatives 312.
Labour 221.
Liberal Democrats 59.
SNP 30
Plaid Cymru 5.
Green Party 3.
Brexit Party 3.
Therefore, in the first 100 days of a Labour Government PR was to be legislated for, on the basis that it was a constitutional change requiring a 'super majority' of at least two-thirds of the Commons to revoke, our political system would change forever.
At the same time, if this change was combined with a reduction of voting age from 18 to 16, it is foreseeable that the UK would be have a period of near permeant Labour led coalitions.
Therefore, the first 5 years of a Labour administration could result in changes which any future administration, even after period of unpopularity, would find difficult to repeal.
Let's take the European issue head on.
The first 100 days of a Labour administration could enter into enter discussions with the European Union, join the schengen zone and adopt the Euro, with the pound being phased out over a period of 6 months.
Then, at the heart of Europe once again, the UK could become a leader in the pursuit of a European Army (as a replacement for NATO), with annual budgets for defence spending decided jointly by the EU bloc versus individual nation states.
It would be clearly obvious that such a policy change would be deeply unpopular amongst a section of the UK voting public, although in combination with the changes to voting age and the adopting of PR, any future government would likely still have Labour at its core.
Then over the course of a 5 year parliament, the UK could advocate for an entire shift from member state tax and spend proposals to a BLOC approach.
Taxation rates across EU member states could be harmonised over the course of 5 years, with concepts such as debt as a percentage of GDP being shifted away from nation states to the EU bloc as a whole, a BLOC with a population of nearly 500 million which would have a single debt to GDP rate.
The same approach could also be taken regarding government spending, with spending on healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and state provisions being dealt with on a BLOC wide basis.
This approach would enable the UK to adopt a more area specific approach, with local authorities and councils being the main body in addressing local issues and the House of Commons concentrating solely on addressing local matters by working as an agent with EU more widely to address the concerns of councillors at the local level.
Then as we approach the end of a 5 year parliament, the new EU treaty could be embedded as a constitutional piece of legislation which required at least 3rd of the house of commons support to repeal.
16 million or so voted to remain in the EU with 17.5 million voting to leave back in 2016.
That 17.5 million is split between a number of parties at the moment and even if we take a direct 52% versus 48% analysis, it would be near impossible for a large 'anti EU movement' to repeal any changes made unless support exceeded 60% and in combination with the changes in voting age, I would imagine this figure would be even more difficult to achieve.
Therefore meaning the UK would be at the heart of a new and reformed EU BLOC which dealt with nearly all matters of law plus fiscal & monetary policies.
I am aware that a large number of those within the UK could vote to send 'Anti EU' candidates to the EU parliament in attempts to undermine the BLOC, in a similar way to how the UK has previously with the Brexit Party and UKIP - parties which didn't help shape the European Union but actively sought to leave the BLOC.
The way to prevent such a situation happening again is to have a BLOC wide approach regarding individual candidates in member states - ie the commission votes on who shall be the two candidate for a member state country and then member states would be able to vote between 2 choices.
Over the course of 10 years or longer, the aim could be to educate all school students in a second language - i.e English, French and Spanish only so that after the next generation of kids graduate, the whole of the EU would have one single language.
Then, finally after a full 15-20 years of integration, after many now speak one single language and all member states are fully integrated into an EU BLOC as one, elections could take place on a BLOC wide basis, with all member states voting for 1 or 2 candidates and directly election an EU president for all nations, thus eliminating the need for national governments and having a single local level councillor approach across all nations in Europe.
So imagine.
In the next 20 years, if Labour play their cards right, we could be voting for a European President who would lead our part of the world into the next generation - directly elected by all member state countries and thus contributing to the EU becoming one of the most democratic political unions in the world.
(edited 2 months ago)
Original post by EmilyJade24
Imagine it's late 2024 and the Labour Party is able to win the general election with a majority on par with the Blair in 1997.
Would a Labour Government be willing to take radical action for the good of the nation?
Within the first 100 days of a Labour government, if a Starmer administration was to legislative to make the following changes below, it would set in stone the future prospects of the nation.
In 2019, the election result was as follows:
Conservatives 365.
Labour 203.
Liberal Democrats 11
SNP 48
Plaid Cymru 2.
Green Party 1.
Brexit Party 0.
The same results adopting PR would have resulted in the following:
Conservatives 312.
Labour 221.
Liberal Democrats 59.
SNP 30
Plaid Cymru 5.
Green Party 3.
Brexit Party 3.
Therefore, in the first 100 days of a Labour Government PR was to be legislated for, on the basis that it was a constitutional change requiring a 'super majority' of at least two-thirds of the Commons to revoke, our political system would change forever.
At the same time, if this change was combined with a reduction of voting age from 18 to 16, it is foreseeable that the UK would be have a period of near permeant Labour led coalitions.
Therefore, the first 5 years of a Labour administration could result in changes which any future administration, even after period of unpopularity, would find difficult to repeal.
Let's take the European issue head on.
The first 100 days of a Labour administration could enter into enter discussions with the European Union, join the schengen zone and adopt the Euro, with the pound being phased out over a period of 6 months.
Then, at the heart of Europe once again, the UK could become a leader in the pursuit of a European Army (as a replacement for NATO), with annual budgets for defence spending decided jointly by the EU bloc versus individual nation states.
It would be clearly obvious that such a policy change would be deeply unpopular amongst a section of the UK voting public, although in combination with the changes to voting age and the adopting of PR, any future government would likely still have Labour at its core.
Then over the course of a 5 year parliament, the UK could advocate for an entire shift from member state tax and spend proposals to a BLOC approach.
Taxation rates across EU member states could be harmonised over the course of 5 years, with concepts such as debt as a percentage of GDP being shifted away from nation states to the EU bloc as a whole, a BLOC with a population of nearly 500 million which would have a single debt to GDP rate.
The same approach could also be taken regarding government spending, with spending on healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and state provisions being dealt with on a BLOC wide basis.
This approach would enable the UK to adopt a more area specific approach, with local authorities and councils being the main body in addressing local issues and the House of Commons concentrating solely on addressing local matters by working as an agent with EU more widely to address the concerns of councillors at the local level.
Then as we approach the end of a 5 year parliament, the new EU treaty could be embedded as a constitutional piece of legislation which required at least 3rd of the house of commons support to repeal.
16 million or so voted to remain in the EU with 17.5 million voting to leave back in 2016.
That 17.5 million is split between a number of parties at the moment and even if we take a direct 52% versus 48% analysis, it would be near impossible for a large 'anti EU movement' to repeal any changes made unless support exceeded 60% and in combination with the changes in voting age, I would imagine this figure would be even more difficult to achieve.
Therefore meaning the UK would be at the heart of a new and reformed EU BLOC which dealt with nearly all matters of law plus fiscal & monetary policies.
I am aware that a large number of those within the UK could vote to send 'Anti EU' candidates to the EU parliament in attempts to undermine the BLOC, in a similar way to how the UK has previously with the Brexit Party and UKIP - parties which didn't help shape the European Union but actively sought to leave the BLOC.
The way to prevent such a situation happening again is to have a BLOC wide approach regarding individual candidates in member states - ie the commission votes on who shall be the two candidate for a member state country and then member states would be able to vote between 2 choices.
Over the course of 10 years or longer, the aim could be to educate all school students in a second language - i.e English, French and Spanish only so that after the next generation of kids graduate, the whole of the EU would have one single language.
Then, finally after a full 15-20 years of integration, after many now speak one single language and all member states are fully integrated into an EU BLOC as one, elections could take place on a BLOC wide basis, with all member states voting for 1 or 2 candidates and directly election an EU president for all nations, thus eliminating the need for national governments and having a single local level councillor approach across all nations in Europe.
So imagine.
In the next 20 years, if Labour play their cards right, we could be voting for a European President who would lead our part of the world into the next generation - directly elected by all member state countries and thus contributing to the EU becoming one of the most democratic political unions in the world.
Would a Labour Government be willing to take radical action for the good of the nation?
Within the first 100 days of a Labour government, if a Starmer administration was to legislative to make the following changes below, it would set in stone the future prospects of the nation.
In 2019, the election result was as follows:
Conservatives 365.
Labour 203.
Liberal Democrats 11
SNP 48
Plaid Cymru 2.
Green Party 1.
Brexit Party 0.
The same results adopting PR would have resulted in the following:
Conservatives 312.
Labour 221.
Liberal Democrats 59.
SNP 30
Plaid Cymru 5.
Green Party 3.
Brexit Party 3.
Therefore, in the first 100 days of a Labour Government PR was to be legislated for, on the basis that it was a constitutional change requiring a 'super majority' of at least two-thirds of the Commons to revoke, our political system would change forever.
At the same time, if this change was combined with a reduction of voting age from 18 to 16, it is foreseeable that the UK would be have a period of near permeant Labour led coalitions.
Therefore, the first 5 years of a Labour administration could result in changes which any future administration, even after period of unpopularity, would find difficult to repeal.
Let's take the European issue head on.
The first 100 days of a Labour administration could enter into enter discussions with the European Union, join the schengen zone and adopt the Euro, with the pound being phased out over a period of 6 months.
Then, at the heart of Europe once again, the UK could become a leader in the pursuit of a European Army (as a replacement for NATO), with annual budgets for defence spending decided jointly by the EU bloc versus individual nation states.
It would be clearly obvious that such a policy change would be deeply unpopular amongst a section of the UK voting public, although in combination with the changes to voting age and the adopting of PR, any future government would likely still have Labour at its core.
Then over the course of a 5 year parliament, the UK could advocate for an entire shift from member state tax and spend proposals to a BLOC approach.
Taxation rates across EU member states could be harmonised over the course of 5 years, with concepts such as debt as a percentage of GDP being shifted away from nation states to the EU bloc as a whole, a BLOC with a population of nearly 500 million which would have a single debt to GDP rate.
The same approach could also be taken regarding government spending, with spending on healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and state provisions being dealt with on a BLOC wide basis.
This approach would enable the UK to adopt a more area specific approach, with local authorities and councils being the main body in addressing local issues and the House of Commons concentrating solely on addressing local matters by working as an agent with EU more widely to address the concerns of councillors at the local level.
Then as we approach the end of a 5 year parliament, the new EU treaty could be embedded as a constitutional piece of legislation which required at least 3rd of the house of commons support to repeal.
16 million or so voted to remain in the EU with 17.5 million voting to leave back in 2016.
That 17.5 million is split between a number of parties at the moment and even if we take a direct 52% versus 48% analysis, it would be near impossible for a large 'anti EU movement' to repeal any changes made unless support exceeded 60% and in combination with the changes in voting age, I would imagine this figure would be even more difficult to achieve.
Therefore meaning the UK would be at the heart of a new and reformed EU BLOC which dealt with nearly all matters of law plus fiscal & monetary policies.
I am aware that a large number of those within the UK could vote to send 'Anti EU' candidates to the EU parliament in attempts to undermine the BLOC, in a similar way to how the UK has previously with the Brexit Party and UKIP - parties which didn't help shape the European Union but actively sought to leave the BLOC.
The way to prevent such a situation happening again is to have a BLOC wide approach regarding individual candidates in member states - ie the commission votes on who shall be the two candidate for a member state country and then member states would be able to vote between 2 choices.
Over the course of 10 years or longer, the aim could be to educate all school students in a second language - i.e English, French and Spanish only so that after the next generation of kids graduate, the whole of the EU would have one single language.
Then, finally after a full 15-20 years of integration, after many now speak one single language and all member states are fully integrated into an EU BLOC as one, elections could take place on a BLOC wide basis, with all member states voting for 1 or 2 candidates and directly election an EU president for all nations, thus eliminating the need for national governments and having a single local level councillor approach across all nations in Europe.
So imagine.
In the next 20 years, if Labour play their cards right, we could be voting for a European President who would lead our part of the world into the next generation - directly elected by all member state countries and thus contributing to the EU becoming one of the most democratic political unions in the world.
These won't happen, no.
Starmer is a man who values power and has decided that the best way to achieve this is to be as inoffensive as possible.
I shall address your points though (the thread should be moved to politics)
We won't see PR. No government with a majority will agree to something that will damage it. Moreover, just like Lords Reform in 2012, Lab MP's won't vote for Christmas. They rejected the timing amendment to sink the bill in that instance and admitted so afterwards.
Our political system does not allow for effective supermajorities. As with the fixed terms parliament act, parliament could repeal PR with a simple majority. No parliament can bind another.
Labour theoretically claim to support votes for 16 and 17 year olds however there are a few problems with your logic.
1) There are only about 1.5 million of them. There are about 53 million other voters, so no, there will be no near permanent coalition. Indeed, the winning margin for the Tories in 2019 was 3.7 million.
2) Even in 2017 with a Corbyn fan club, 18-24 only had a 57% turnout rate (lower before and since) so even if we assume two thirds, your pool falls to a million.
3) It gets slightly worse for you though. Only about 60% support Labour (600,000). When Labour is in power that number tends to fall a lot because people don't like incumbents who can do things they don't like. So chances are, that would fall over time.
.
The next thing requires some serious imagination. Not a single poll, even among remoaners has indicated support for the Euro and as a Tory I think there'd be nothing better than Labour committing to going into the core rather than our prior situation. If you want a way to bring back the 2019 voter coalition then you've found it.
The second language for every EU state is English, if it gets an official language, that would be it.
I can't comment on the rest of the EU stuff, mostly because it's horrifying but also because Labour are far too greedy to ever actually want to cede that level of power to the EU.
I also forgot to add that the idea of a permanent Labour coalition is also a myth in its own right under PR.
1) People who have this idea like to forget the fact that the Coalition existed in 2010-2015. The Lib Dem's will go with whoever will give them the most power.
Let's remember that in Scotland between 07-11 the vaunted and holy of the left wing, the SNP, had an agreement with the Tories of all parties to keep them in power (yes, they both try not to talk about that one).
If it suits a political party to deal with the devil, they'll do it.
2) People who say this generally don't understand the Lib Dem's or have never had a Lib Dem council. A lot of people seem to have this naive idea that the Lib Dem's are just tactical voters and that's true for more of the party than say Labour or the Tories but there are a large number of southern Lib Dem's who would urinate themselves before voting Labour. Indeed, half the Lib Dem councils in the south are basically elected on what the Tories would do.
Even in my former ward in Cleckheaton, West Yorkshire the left wing sounding Lab-Lib battle was actually between Lab and a Lib Dem councillor who's policies could have been copied and pasted from the Tory leaflets bar the RL government mentions.
My point here is that in your PR world where tactical voters don't have to stay with the Lib Dem's then actually the remaining Lib Dem husk is actually less big on Labour than you think.
..
Also probably worth saying that in the likes of 2015 the right won 49% of the vote. In 2019 they won 46% of the vote. It's not unlikely they could cobble together a deal with smaller parties to take them over the line.
1) People who have this idea like to forget the fact that the Coalition existed in 2010-2015. The Lib Dem's will go with whoever will give them the most power.
Let's remember that in Scotland between 07-11 the vaunted and holy of the left wing, the SNP, had an agreement with the Tories of all parties to keep them in power (yes, they both try not to talk about that one).
If it suits a political party to deal with the devil, they'll do it.
2) People who say this generally don't understand the Lib Dem's or have never had a Lib Dem council. A lot of people seem to have this naive idea that the Lib Dem's are just tactical voters and that's true for more of the party than say Labour or the Tories but there are a large number of southern Lib Dem's who would urinate themselves before voting Labour. Indeed, half the Lib Dem councils in the south are basically elected on what the Tories would do.
Even in my former ward in Cleckheaton, West Yorkshire the left wing sounding Lab-Lib battle was actually between Lab and a Lib Dem councillor who's policies could have been copied and pasted from the Tory leaflets bar the RL government mentions.
My point here is that in your PR world where tactical voters don't have to stay with the Lib Dem's then actually the remaining Lib Dem husk is actually less big on Labour than you think.
..
Also probably worth saying that in the likes of 2015 the right won 49% of the vote. In 2019 they won 46% of the vote. It's not unlikely they could cobble together a deal with smaller parties to take them over the line.
Original post by EmilyJade24
Imagine it's late 2024 and the Labour Party is able to win the general election with a majority on par with the Blair in 1997.
Would a Labour Government be willing to take radical action for the good of the nation?
Within the first 100 days of a Labour government, if a Starmer administration was to legislative to make the following changes below, it would set in stone the future prospects of the nation.
In 2019, the election result was as follows:
Conservatives 365.
Labour 203.
Liberal Democrats 11
SNP 48
Plaid Cymru 2.
Green Party 1.
Brexit Party 0.
The same results adopting PR would have resulted in the following:
Conservatives 312.
Labour 221.
Liberal Democrats 59.
SNP 30
Plaid Cymru 5.
Green Party 3.
Brexit Party 3.
Therefore, in the first 100 days of a Labour Government PR was to be legislated for, on the basis that it was a constitutional change requiring a 'super majority' of at least two-thirds of the Commons to revoke, our political system would change forever.
At the same time, if this change was combined with a reduction of voting age from 18 to 16, it is foreseeable that the UK would be have a period of near permeant Labour led coalitions.
Therefore, the first 5 years of a Labour administration could result in changes which any future administration, even after period of unpopularity, would find difficult to repeal.
Let's take the European issue head on.
The first 100 days of a Labour administration could enter into enter discussions with the European Union, join the schengen zone and adopt the Euro, with the pound being phased out over a period of 6 months.
Then, at the heart of Europe once again, the UK could become a leader in the pursuit of a European Army (as a replacement for NATO), with annual budgets for defence spending decided jointly by the EU bloc versus individual nation states.
It would be clearly obvious that such a policy change would be deeply unpopular amongst a section of the UK voting public, although in combination with the changes to voting age and the adopting of PR, any future government would likely still have Labour at its core.
Then over the course of a 5 year parliament, the UK could advocate for an entire shift from member state tax and spend proposals to a BLOC approach.
Taxation rates across EU member states could be harmonised over the course of 5 years, with concepts such as debt as a percentage of GDP being shifted away from nation states to the EU bloc as a whole, a BLOC with a population of nearly 500 million which would have a single debt to GDP rate.
The same approach could also be taken regarding government spending, with spending on healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and state provisions being dealt with on a BLOC wide basis.
This approach would enable the UK to adopt a more area specific approach, with local authorities and councils being the main body in addressing local issues and the House of Commons concentrating solely on addressing local matters by working as an agent with EU more widely to address the concerns of councillors at the local level.
Then as we approach the end of a 5 year parliament, the new EU treaty could be embedded as a constitutional piece of legislation which required at least 3rd of the house of commons support to repeal.
16 million or so voted to remain in the EU with 17.5 million voting to leave back in 2016.
That 17.5 million is split between a number of parties at the moment and even if we take a direct 52% versus 48% analysis, it would be near impossible for a large 'anti EU movement' to repeal any changes made unless support exceeded 60% and in combination with the changes in voting age, I would imagine this figure would be even more difficult to achieve.
Therefore meaning the UK would be at the heart of a new and reformed EU BLOC which dealt with nearly all matters of law plus fiscal & monetary policies.
I am aware that a large number of those within the UK could vote to send 'Anti EU' candidates to the EU parliament in attempts to undermine the BLOC, in a similar way to how the UK has previously with the Brexit Party and UKIP - parties which didn't help shape the European Union but actively sought to leave the BLOC.
The way to prevent such a situation happening again is to have a BLOC wide approach regarding individual candidates in member states - ie the commission votes on who shall be the two candidate for a member state country and then member states would be able to vote between 2 choices.
Over the course of 10 years or longer, the aim could be to educate all school students in a second language - i.e English, French and Spanish only so that after the next generation of kids graduate, the whole of the EU would have one single language.
Then, finally after a full 15-20 years of integration, after many now speak one single language and all member states are fully integrated into an EU BLOC as one, elections could take place on a BLOC wide basis, with all member states voting for 1 or 2 candidates and directly election an EU president for all nations, thus eliminating the need for national governments and having a single local level councillor approach across all nations in Europe.
So imagine.
In the next 20 years, if Labour play their cards right, we could be voting for a European President who would lead our part of the world into the next generation - directly elected by all member state countries and thus contributing to the EU becoming one of the most democratic political unions in the world.
Would a Labour Government be willing to take radical action for the good of the nation?
Within the first 100 days of a Labour government, if a Starmer administration was to legislative to make the following changes below, it would set in stone the future prospects of the nation.
In 2019, the election result was as follows:
Conservatives 365.
Labour 203.
Liberal Democrats 11
SNP 48
Plaid Cymru 2.
Green Party 1.
Brexit Party 0.
The same results adopting PR would have resulted in the following:
Conservatives 312.
Labour 221.
Liberal Democrats 59.
SNP 30
Plaid Cymru 5.
Green Party 3.
Brexit Party 3.
Therefore, in the first 100 days of a Labour Government PR was to be legislated for, on the basis that it was a constitutional change requiring a 'super majority' of at least two-thirds of the Commons to revoke, our political system would change forever.
At the same time, if this change was combined with a reduction of voting age from 18 to 16, it is foreseeable that the UK would be have a period of near permeant Labour led coalitions.
Therefore, the first 5 years of a Labour administration could result in changes which any future administration, even after period of unpopularity, would find difficult to repeal.
Let's take the European issue head on.
The first 100 days of a Labour administration could enter into enter discussions with the European Union, join the schengen zone and adopt the Euro, with the pound being phased out over a period of 6 months.
Then, at the heart of Europe once again, the UK could become a leader in the pursuit of a European Army (as a replacement for NATO), with annual budgets for defence spending decided jointly by the EU bloc versus individual nation states.
It would be clearly obvious that such a policy change would be deeply unpopular amongst a section of the UK voting public, although in combination with the changes to voting age and the adopting of PR, any future government would likely still have Labour at its core.
Then over the course of a 5 year parliament, the UK could advocate for an entire shift from member state tax and spend proposals to a BLOC approach.
Taxation rates across EU member states could be harmonised over the course of 5 years, with concepts such as debt as a percentage of GDP being shifted away from nation states to the EU bloc as a whole, a BLOC with a population of nearly 500 million which would have a single debt to GDP rate.
The same approach could also be taken regarding government spending, with spending on healthcare, education, welfare, pensions and state provisions being dealt with on a BLOC wide basis.
This approach would enable the UK to adopt a more area specific approach, with local authorities and councils being the main body in addressing local issues and the House of Commons concentrating solely on addressing local matters by working as an agent with EU more widely to address the concerns of councillors at the local level.
Then as we approach the end of a 5 year parliament, the new EU treaty could be embedded as a constitutional piece of legislation which required at least 3rd of the house of commons support to repeal.
16 million or so voted to remain in the EU with 17.5 million voting to leave back in 2016.
That 17.5 million is split between a number of parties at the moment and even if we take a direct 52% versus 48% analysis, it would be near impossible for a large 'anti EU movement' to repeal any changes made unless support exceeded 60% and in combination with the changes in voting age, I would imagine this figure would be even more difficult to achieve.
Therefore meaning the UK would be at the heart of a new and reformed EU BLOC which dealt with nearly all matters of law plus fiscal & monetary policies.
I am aware that a large number of those within the UK could vote to send 'Anti EU' candidates to the EU parliament in attempts to undermine the BLOC, in a similar way to how the UK has previously with the Brexit Party and UKIP - parties which didn't help shape the European Union but actively sought to leave the BLOC.
The way to prevent such a situation happening again is to have a BLOC wide approach regarding individual candidates in member states - ie the commission votes on who shall be the two candidate for a member state country and then member states would be able to vote between 2 choices.
Over the course of 10 years or longer, the aim could be to educate all school students in a second language - i.e English, French and Spanish only so that after the next generation of kids graduate, the whole of the EU would have one single language.
Then, finally after a full 15-20 years of integration, after many now speak one single language and all member states are fully integrated into an EU BLOC as one, elections could take place on a BLOC wide basis, with all member states voting for 1 or 2 candidates and directly election an EU president for all nations, thus eliminating the need for national governments and having a single local level councillor approach across all nations in Europe.
So imagine.
In the next 20 years, if Labour play their cards right, we could be voting for a European President who would lead our part of the world into the next generation - directly elected by all member state countries and thus contributing to the EU becoming one of the most democratic political unions in the world.
There are many good ideas in your post, but I fear that few in the UK or in Europe have the appetite to make the changes you suggest.
It may be that the Nation State is simultaneously too small and too large to deal with its problems. Nation States, fairly recent inventions, are good at waging war and often not good at other things. City States or Super States might be better, although Super States in particular have problems of their own.
I think that an anti-Tory Coalition would be the best election outcome for the UK, but it appears that Labour will win a large majority and, as noted above, that will make the introduction of PR unlikely.
I retain some faint hope that Starmer may contain within his apparently Blairite casing an inner social democrat or even an inner democratic Socialist, but I think that we may just see a continuation of the failed and always doomed to fail Neo Liberal project which has blighted the UK since 1979.
Neolib propaganda has been so successful that even some people who remember the postwar Consensus have learned to rubbish its achievements, and have been fed with false memories about the effectiveness of empowered local authorities and public ownership of infrastructure. I grew up in the 60s and 70s and have resisted the Neoliberal brainwashing, so I remember how well the social democratic/democratic Socialist State of 1945-1979 fucntioned. I do not say that it was flawless, but it was less flawed than it is now represented to have been.
I recommend, as a mythbuster, Christian Wolmar's recent history of British Rail. The most recent biography of Harold Wilson is a reminder of what an effective progressive politician Wilson was. The most recent biography of Clement Attlee is an inspiring antidote to cynicism, and a reminder of how it is possible to build a better world.
But we shall probably continue with the same Neolib claptrap that we have had since that foolish, empathy-free Philistine Margaret Thatcher (a woman who misunderstood both Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek), started to swing the wrecking ball, and brought to an end the period when regulated Capitalism and liberal democracy worked together to deliver progress. The childish notion that a State can be run like a grocery store (or a manufacturing company, or a professional service firm, or an investment bank), has somehow persisted. Rule by MBAs hasn't worked, but still at top universities the business schools are more popular than the schools of public policy.
Capitalism isn't a system, it's behaviour. It can become misbehaviour when it's unregulated. The social democratic State used to curb Capitalism's excesses. I wish that State would reappear and do so again.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Econ 15 mark essay
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Politics edexcel alevel 2023 predictions
- Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 3B: 9PL0 3B - 17 June 2022 [Exam Chat]
- Edexcel A-level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- 2023–24 by-elections thread
- [Official Thread] Chancellor Jeremy Hunt to deliver Autumn Statement on Wednesday
- Political Quiz: Are you a fascist?
- 2024 Budget: Chancellor Jeremy Hunt under pressure to cut taxes
- Should i vote Labour?
- OCR A-Level History Unit 3 (Y301-Y321) - 24th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A-Level Politics Paper 3 - 7152/3 16 June 2023 [Exam chat]
- Thames Water boss says bills need to rise by 40%
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- 2020 - 5 wasted years, what could have been?
- Can someone help me improve my History Essay? (AQA History)
- No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targets
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Where can I find cash-in-hand jobs?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 5 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
