[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

Any coalition government of left or right would need the collaboration of parties from the far left and far right, respectively. This could very easily put an extremist into the cabinet. It is how it works in Israel.

But if you want to risk it, and imagine PR would deliver us a hegemony of fluffy centrist governments, with perhaps some new parties such as New Conservative, and New Labour, holding hands and singing Kumbaya with some Greens and Liberals, fill your boots. Campaign away.

You can mock me all you like for backing PR. You can come back and say 'told you so' when the system is changed to PR. You may have to hold a séance to get in touch with me, though

Click to expand...

I like you, have spent my adult life defending the positives of our current electoral system. That it provides certain governments, you avoid backroom deals and that you avoid the need to reach agreement on what the alternative would look like.

But I was wrong. FPTP has given allowed the biggest bunch of clowns in modern political history to govern near unchallenged for as long as I can remember. I'm sick of it and any backroom deal struck between Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems and whoever can't produce worse results or a greater sense of paralysis than we currently have now

Nobby Cybergoat said:

I like you, have spent my adult life defending the positives of our current electoral system. That it provides certain governments, you avoid backroom deals and that you avoid the need to reach agreement on what the alternative would look like.

But I was wrong. FPTP has given allowed the biggest bunch of clowns in modern political history to govern near unchallenged for as long as I can remember. I'm sick of it and any backroom deal struck between Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems and whoever can't produce worse results or a greater sense of paralysis than we currently have now

Click to expand...

Keep the faith. Johnson was an aberration, and has triggered a madness in the tory party.

Starmer, by comparison, seems dull and desiccated through the current lens of perception, which is still based on the Johnson rollercoaster (that many still hanker for). But we will see that he's what we need, and we will get what we need.

Changing the system because we don't like the outcome is not the right way.

Bob! said:

Johnson would have followed the way the wind was blowing, and become one of those one nation conservatives though.

Click to expand...

Johnson's main political instinct is Johnson first and then see what follows. But, insofar as he does have political beliefs, he's more on the liberal wing of the party. He wanted an amnesty for illegal immigrants when he was Mayor of London and he was very pro-EU before there was a political advantage in being anti. I think he'd be more One Nation than ERG head banger.

beorhthelm said:

media is primarily in the business of selling what people want to read (to sell advertising - that's where the money is coming from). they'll be biased of course but there's a lot of people who have views that media simply reinforce rather than tell them what to think. there's also a free press, nothing to stop new media outlets targeting any political views. except the money maybe, not a receptive or lucrative audience, back to the first point.

Click to expand...

Except, of course, that nobody is going to advertise in a newspaper where views are expressed that are adverse to an advertiser’s viewpoint.

It would be far harder, I can’t help but feel, to start a newspaper where the views are largely “we, the population, are being royally shafted” than it would be to start a paper where the views expressed are “everything’s exactly as it should be, except for those loony lefties, what mad nonsense are they on about now?”

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

Any coalition government of left or right would need the collaboration of parties from the far left and far right, respectively. This could very easily put an extremist into the cabinet. It is how it works in Israel.

But if you want to risk it, and imagine PR would deliver us a hegemony of fluffy centrist governments, with perhaps some new parties such as New Conservative, and New Labour, holding hands and singing Kumbaya with some Greens and Liberals, fill your boots. Campaign away.

You can mock me all you like for backing PR. You can come back and say 'told you so' when the system is changed to PR. You may have to hold a séance to get in touch with me, though

Click to expand...

I certainly wouldn't mock you at all for backing PR. I'm just pleased my arguments have won you over and somewhat surprised at how little alcohol was involved

beorhthelm said:

2015 if we count the Unionists. and what did that lead to?

moreover, if we had PR the make up of parties would change, existing ones likely splinter and we'd have alternating center left/center right coalitions, with occasional sprinkling of fringe. popularist leaders of parties with 25-35 of the vote would be PM. this of course would be very positive. support PR for the process not for the anticipated outcome.

Click to expand...

Who are you counting as 'right'? Tories only managed 36.9% of those that voted (66%). The other parties would have to be doing some heavy lifting to get beyond the half-way point.

beorhthelm said:

media is primarily in the business of selling what people want to read (to sell advertising - that's where the money is coming from). they'll be biased of course but there's a lot of people who have views that media simply reinforce rather than tell them what to think. there's also a free press, nothing to stop new media outlets targeting any political views. except the money maybe, not a receptive or lucrative audience, back to the first point.

Click to expand...

I think there's something in what @chickens says (Sun and Mail readers tend to be less loyal to the editorial party line than other papers). But the media (or press, which is what I'm talking about) really isn't 'primarily in the business of selling what people want to read'. If they did, why is it so many moguls run the press at a loss, and that they all seem to have a remarkably consistent viewpoint on economics?

Machiavelli said:

I think there's something in what @chickens says (Sun and Mail readers tend to be less loyal to the editorial party line than other papers). But the media (or press, which is what I'm talking about) really isn't 'primarily in the business of selling what people want to read'. If they did, why is it so many moguls run the press at a loss, and that they all seem to have a remarkably consistent viewpoint on economics?

Click to expand...

I'd probably go further and say most of these tabloids are now little more than political pamphlets agitating for the Conservative Party. They work hand in glove with think tanks, to try and set the political weather and undermine treasured national institutions like certain charities, the NHS and BBC.

I don't deny that at some point, the prevailing aim of the newspaper was to write content that their readership would want to read, ultimately to make money as a newspaper. But that changed, sometime in the last decade I think. Now the prevailing aim is to support right wing policies to help ensure that the wider financial interests of a few offshore billionaires are looked after. Whether the paper makes money or not is a secondary concern. Any money the moguls lose in dwindling sales is dwarfed by being able to keep their interests and money offshore, hidden and away from being taxed.

A1X said:

Click to expand...

Baldseagull said:

How about the Alternative Vote system we had a referendum on? Would still allow people to vote for the candidate they most wanted, rather than against the one they most despised, but allow that vote to pass to another if their most preferred candidate was not popular enough with others to be in the race. It seems close to ideal to me.

Click to expand...

It's a decent system. More democratic than FPTP, and IMO would be a necessary stepping stone towards PR. Flipping from FPTP to full PR in one go isn't a good idea IMO.

I really like the Aussie system. AV for the lower house (which determines the government). It typically generates majority governments, but does leave a door open for strong independents and minor parties to grab seats. And then the upper house is PR, with staggered terms (in normal GEs only half the house is up for vote). It still generates strong two-party numbers of seats, but you generally get enough independents and minor parties to prevent a full majority. And the upper house has teeth - it can (and has historically) shoot down bad legislation from the lower house. Typically, however, bad legislation doesn't make it to the upper house because the governing party knows they need support from minor parties / independents to get it through.

Still have the problem, though, of it realistically being a 2-party system when it comes to forming government. It's either the Liberal/National Coalition (Coalition that's been in place so long it's effectively a single party) or the Australian Labor Party. A full PR system you'd probably see the Lib and Nat parties separate while still being closely allied.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

There is an infinity of mischief to be had.

He would double down on persecuting diversity, for starters.

No, I don't want ****s like that anywhere near parliament, let alone the cabinet.

They laughed at Hitler......

Click to expand...

You're assuming a Farage / Conservative tie-up is/was an inevitability. Not convinced that's correct.

Sid and the Sharknados said:

I'm much more concerned by the threat of entryism into one of those parties dragging them to the right or left while they're in power than I am with a relatively extreme party forming part of a coalition under a PR system. It's much easier in the latter scenario for the rest of the coalition to say "you know what mate, we've had enough of this" than it is for the centrists in either Labour or the Conservatives to deal with a group dragging their party to either extreme.

Click to expand...

Agree with you on this. It happened with Corbyn (thankfully not terminally) in Labour, and it's happened with the Conservatives - in the latter case in particular at the constituency level, where candidate selection currently appears to favour much further right today than it did historically, which resulted in the 2019 GE seeing a lot of what probably would have been Ukip candidates back in 2010 being elected as Conservatives. They aren't true Conservatives, they're candidates with a very narrow, specific political view that ordinarily would not have seen anywhere near as many of them get elected.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

It is how it works in Israel.

Click to expand...

Israel is not a like-for-like comparison. There are very specific geo-political forces at play in Israel that heavily distort things in a way we would not see in the UK. It's an extreme example, and one that's not likely to be repeated. Far more relevant examples are available. And yes, in many of those examples you do see a small number of quacks and marginal viewpoint candidates get in. But the point is, those small numbers are almost always (examples like Israel being the exception) heavily outweighed by the moderates, especially as there is more room for diversification of moderate parties that makes it easier for voters to choose a party that represents *them* instead of having to compromise because the party that most closely matches them is actually 2 or 3 parties loosely organised under a single name that could significantly change direction at a moments notice due to a leadership change (such as Corbyn's Labour vs Starmer's Labour).

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

Changing the system because we don't like the outcome is not the right way.

Click to expand...

Not changing the system because we don't like one extreme potential outcome is also not the right way.

"PR" as a voting system is a catch-all that covers a multitude of possible solutions. Some of which are actually quite good at preventing your fears from happening. For example, Australia's PR system for the Senate requires that certain quota thresholds are reached before a candidate can be elected. What typically happens is the loonies just don't reach the threshold and are eliminated before they get a seat.

Gwylan said:

Johnson's main political instinct is Johnson first and then see what follows. But, insofar as he does have political beliefs, he's more on the liberal wing of the party. He wanted an amnesty for illegal immigrants when he was Mayor of London and he was very pro-EU before there was a political advantage in being anti. I think he'd be more One Nation than ERG head banger.

Click to expand...

Johnson is not a liberal, he speaks like he is, but he most certainly is not by his actions.

Kinky Gerbil said:

Johnson is not a liberal, he speaks like he is, but he most certainly is not by his actions.

Click to expand...

Someone who talked of the benefits of immigration and wants amnesty for illegal immigrants is not on the right of the party. But you're right that he'll disavow any form of liberalism, the only political philosophy that he follows is Johnstonism

Audax said:

It's a decent system. More democratic than FPTP, and IMO would be a necessary stepping stone towards PR. Flipping from FPTP to full PR in one go isn't a good idea IMO.

I really like the Aussie system. AV for the lower house (which determines the government). It typically generates majority governments, but does leave a door open for strong independents and minor parties to grab seats. And then the upper house is PR, with staggered terms (in normal GEs only half the house is up for vote). It still generates strong two-party numbers of seats, but you generally get enough independents and minor parties to prevent a full majority. And the upper house has teeth - it can (and has historically) shoot down bad legislation from the lower house. Typically, however, bad legislation doesn't make it to the upper house because the governing party knows they need support from minor parties / independents to get it through.

Still have the problem, though, of it realistically being a 2-party system when it comes to forming government. It's either the Liberal/National Coalition (Coalition that's been in place so long it's effectively a single party) or the Australian Labor Party. A full PR system you'd probably see the Lib and Nat parties separate while still being closely allied.



You're assuming a Farage / Conservative tie-up is/was an inevitability. Not convinced that's correct.



Agree with you on this. It happened with Corbyn (thankfully not terminally) in Labour, and it's happened with the Conservatives - in the latter case in particular at the constituency level, where candidate selection currently appears to favour much further right today than it did historically, which resulted in the 2019 GE seeing a lot of what probably would have been Ukip candidates back in 2010 being elected as Conservatives. They aren't true Conservatives, they're candidates with a very narrow, specific political view that ordinarily would not have seen anywhere near as many of them get elected.



Israel is not a like-for-like comparison. There are very specific geo-political forces at play in Israel that heavily distort things in a way we would not see in the UK. It's an extreme example, and one that's not likely to be repeated. Far more relevant examples are available. And yes, in many of those examples you do see a small number of quacks and marginal viewpoint candidates get in. But the point is, those small numbers are almost always (examples like Israel being the exception) heavily outweighed by the moderates, especially as there is more room for diversification of moderate parties that makes it easier for voters to choose a party that represents *them* instead of having to compromise because the party that most closely matches them is actually 2 or 3 parties loosely organised under a single name that could significantly change direction at a moments notice due to a leadership change (such as Corbyn's Labour vs Starmer's Labour).



Not changing the system because we don't like one extreme potential outcome is also not the right way.

"PR" as a voting system is a catch-all that covers a multitude of possible solutions. Some of which are actually quite good at preventing your fears from happening. For example, Australia's PR system for the Senate requires that certain quota thresholds are reached before a candidate can be elected. What typically happens is the loonies just don't reach the threshold and are eliminated before they get a seat.

Click to expand...

I know you touch on it a couple of times in this post, but how do you find STV works in the senate elections in Australia?

In principle it seems to me to address most of my objections to both FPTP and a straight PR system (i.e. somewhat proportional, more votes influence the outcome, votes still made for individual candidates rather than a party as a whole), but I'd be interested in hearing if you have any particular objections to it in practice.

Edit: I'm aware that I bang on about STV a lot on here. I'm sort of relying on most people finding the topic so boring that they forget and/or don't notice.

Machiavelli said:

Who are you counting as 'right'? Tories only managed 36.9% of those that voted (66%). The other parties would have to be doing some heavy lifting to get beyond the half-way point.

Click to expand...

Tories, UKIP, Unionist added up to 50.6%.

Nobby Cybergoat said:

I'd probably go further and say most of these tabloids are now little more than political pamphlets agitating for the Conservative Party. They work hand in glove with think tanks, to try and set the political weather and undermine treasured national institutions like certain charities, the NHS and BBC.

I don't deny that at some point, the prevailing aim of the newspaper was to write content that their readership would want to read, ultimately to make money as a newspaper. But that changed, sometime in the last decade I think. Now the prevailing aim is to support right wing policies to help ensure that the wider financial interests of a few offshore billionaires are looked after. Whether the paper makes money or not is a secondary concern. Any money the moguls lose in dwindling sales is dwarfed by being able to keep their interests and money offshore, hidden and away from being taxed.

Click to expand...

Well, they don’t seem to be doing a very effective job for the Conservatives at the moment do they!
By the way, do you really think the NHS can continue as it is? Serious and honest politicians on both sides of the spectrum must see that it is in need of more than a ‘tweak here and there!’

Kinky Gerbil said:

Johnson is not a liberal, he speaks like he is, but he most certainly is not by his actions.

Click to expand...

Liberal for himself. Very much not for the lower classes. The masses. Anyone who didn’t tickle his balls at Eton must be disciplined and work hard to fill his coffers.

Now what are you doing on here? Back to the coal-face with you. Subhuman scum.

Audax said:

It's a decent system. More democratic than FPTP, and IMO would be a necessary stepping stone towards PR. Flipping from FPTP to full PR in one go isn't a good idea IMO.

I really like the Aussie system. AV for the lower house (which determines the government). It typically generates majority governments, but does leave a door open for strong independents and minor parties to grab seats. And then the upper house is PR, with staggered terms (in normal GEs only half the house is up for vote). It still generates strong two-party numbers of seats, but you generally get enough independents and minor parties to prevent a full majority. And the upper house has teeth - it can (and has historically) shoot down bad legislation from the lower house. Typically, however, bad legislation doesn't make it to the upper house because the governing party knows they need support from minor parties / independents to get it through.

Still have the problem, though, of it realistically being a 2-party system when it comes to forming government. It's either the Liberal/National Coalition (Coalition that's been in place so long it's effectively a single party) or the Australian Labor Party. A full PR system you'd probably see the Lib and Nat parties separate while still being closely allied.



You're assuming a Farage / Conservative tie-up is/was an inevitability. Not convinced that's correct.



Agree with you on this. It happened with Corbyn (thankfully not terminally) in Labour, and it's happened with the Conservatives - in the latter case in particular at the constituency level, where candidate selection currently appears to favour much further right today than it did historically, which resulted in the 2019 GE seeing a lot of what probably would have been Ukip candidates back in 2010 being elected as Conservatives. They aren't true Conservatives, they're candidates with a very narrow, specific political view that ordinarily would not have seen anywhere near as many of them get elected.



Israel is not a like-for-like comparison. There are very specific geo-political forces at play in Israel that heavily distort things in a way we would not see in the UK. It's an extreme example, and one that's not likely to be repeated. Far more relevant examples are available. And yes, in many of those examples you do see a small number of quacks and marginal viewpoint candidates get in. But the point is, those small numbers are almost always (examples like Israel being the exception) heavily outweighed by the moderates, especially as there is more room for diversification of moderate parties that makes it easier for voters to choose a party that represents *them* instead of having to compromise because the party that most closely matches them is actually 2 or 3 parties loosely organised under a single name that could significantly change direction at a moments notice due to a leadership change (such as Corbyn's Labour vs Starmer's Labour).



Not changing the system because we don't like one extreme potential outcome is also not the right way.

"PR" as a voting system is a catch-all that covers a multitude of possible solutions. Some of which are actually quite good at preventing your fears from happening. For example, Australia's PR system for the Senate requires that certain quota thresholds are reached before a candidate can be elected. What typically happens is the loonies just don't reach the threshold and are eliminated before they get a seat.

Click to expand...

I don't mind that.

I appreciate that I am repeating myself here, but I am not aware that either labour or conservative are remotely interested in changing the system, whereas those parties who think their representation would increase are all in favour. The liberals have been on about it for years. The temptation to comment that they would be, wouldn't they, is overwhelming.

Perhaps, if the tories suffer a large defeat in the next general election they will get behind electoral reform. Which illustrates the problem - in the UK - the only parties with an appetite for electoral reform are those that think they would benefit by it and who are, by definition, not in the position of power necessary to do anything about it.

BLOCK F said:

Well, they don’t seem to be doing a very effective job for the Conservatives at the moment do they!

Click to expand...

No. Without their cheerleaders at GB News, the Mail and The Institute for policy studies (and their many sister organisations) things would be much, much worse for the Conservatives

BLOCK F said:

By the way, do you really think the NHS can continue as it is? Serious and honest politicians on both sides of the spectrum must see that it is in need of more than a ‘tweak here and there!’

Click to expand...

You're right. It needs much more than a tweak. It needs to be funded in line with inflation. Not RPI or CPI but health inflation, which is running at about 7% due to our aging population / drug inflation etc. This funding needs to be backdated and in particular, NHS staff need a proper payrise which reflects what they did for us during the pandemic. Keeping them is a whole lot easier than recruiting and training replacements.

This can only be paid for by significantly higher taxation, primarily on the well off, but realistically in part on all of us. But it's worth it. Because the point you make is right, what is currently happening is not sustainable and we're hurtling towards an American model. This is way less efficient than what we have now. We would be paying a lot more in health insurance fees than we will in extra taxes go get our NHS back where it needs to be.

Harry Wilson's tackle said:

I don't mind that.

I appreciate that I am repeating myself here, but I am not aware that either labour or conservative are remotely interested in changing the system, whereas those parties who think their representation would increase are all in favour. The liberals have been on about it for years. The temptation to comment that they would be, wouldn't they, is overwhelming.

Perhaps, if the tories suffer a large defeat in the next general election they will get behind electoral reform. Which illustrates the problem - in the UK - the only parties with an appetite for electoral reform are those that think they would benefit by it and who are, by definition, not in the position of power necessary to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

That's why we need PR