- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,885
And could you imagine the one nation conservatives electing him leader
Even if the Labour and Conservative parties only split into two parties each, the political landscape would be so very different under PR
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
And could you imagine the one nation conservatives electing him leader
Even if the Labour and Conservative parties only split into two parties each, the political landscape would be so very different under PR
Much as I absolutely loathe the charlatan - the 'cheeky chappy, man of the people' act is sickening (he doesn't really give a shit about ordinary working people except in so far as he can whip-up xenophobia for his own ends) - if Fartage was in the House of Commons, his hypocrisy and BS would be much more clearly visible; people would see what his views and policy preferences were on issues other than asylum seekers and immigration.
A lot of those who currently support him because of his racism might then see him vote for NHS privatisation, or voting to further weaken employment protection and workers' rights, and realise that he is absolutely no friend of ordinary working people. He is way to the Right of Thatcher, and thinks that we need more of her policies x 20.
Fartage gets away with his BS because he portrays himself as an 'outsider' operating in the shadows (supposedly persecuted by the 'liberal elite' or 'deep state'), where he avoids critical scrutiny of his Far Right beliefs. In the House of Commons, more people would see what a complete and utter **** he really is - just as when the former BNP leader Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time, he absolutely imploded and destroyed his political career in 45 minutes.
The first part is certainly the case. However, for Starmer and Stewart to have got in 5 years ago would have meant that Corbyn had ceased to be labour leader long before he actually left (4 years ago, after the last general election; Starmer was not leader then). No, we would have a hideous right wing government, and were we to have used PR in 2019 to elect it, it would be a hideous coalition in power now, with Johnson (initially) the PM and Farage in the cabinet. God only knows how f***ed up the Brexit arrangements would be (not that they are exactly favourable now anyway).If we had PR, he may well be sitting in parliament with a few UKIP'ers, together with Johnson, Braverman, Sunak and co with their ERG party, Corbyn leading his true socialist party and a few other waifs and strays, all smirking away completely powerless.
We also would have had a Government made up of Starmer and some of his front bench, Rory Stewart and some one nation conservatives and a few Libdems. We also would not have suffered the last 5 years of total f***wittery.
Thank god for FPTP
Whether the demonstration for 5 years of their level of hideousness might reduce their chance of their winning again this or next year is moot, especially given that Reform would not split the tory vote letting labour win in split seats, since with PR the tories and Reform would get the 'full and fair' value of their vote - what the PR advocates always bang on about.
So, it's a lose-lose situation with PR if you disfavour extremist parties. Same as it ever was.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,885
Under PR, you wouldn't have the two huge coalitions of battling factions held together by the prize of absolute power which currently represent the British electorate's choice of Government.
You would have at least two Conservative parties and Labour parties representing the different wings. So Starmer and Corbyn could both be leaders as could Stewart and Johnson. And, if more people voted for Johnsons ERG and Farage's UKIP (although they are both chasing the same group of voters) than vote for Starmer's centrist labour and Stewart's centrist conservatives (and The Libdems) then your scenario above would happen. But we both know they wouldn't
I have to say H, you do seem a little overly worried by the idea of a few swivel eyed loons getting to be powerless back bench MPs from minor parties as a result of PR.
Especially when you consider we have had Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Kwarteng, Braverman, Patel, Anderson etc in real positions of power (including all the major posts) in the last few years as a result of your beloved FPTP
You would have at least two Conservative parties and Labour parties representing the different wings. So Starmer and Corbyn could both be leaders as could Stewart and Johnson. And, if more people voted for Johnsons ERG and Farage's UKIP (although they are both chasing the same group of voters) than vote for Starmer's centrist labour and Stewart's centrist conservatives (and The Libdems) then your scenario above would happen. But we both know they wouldn't
I have to say H, you do seem a little overly worried by the idea of a few swivel eyed loons getting to be powerless back bench MPs from minor parties as a result of PR.
Especially when you consider we have had Johnson, Truss, Sunak, Kwarteng, Braverman, Patel, Anderson etc in real positions of power (including all the major posts) in the last few years as a result of your beloved FPTP
Last edited:
Because the area I worked in consults with both parties. Particularly as everyone expects Labour to win. The machine works in exactly the same way regardless of party.
Let me have another go at persuading you.
Sadly having his policies and actions held up to scrutiny would have no more effect on his popularity among his followers than the excruciating exposure of his litany of lies has had any effect on Johnson's popularity among the tory faithful. The latter would be restored as leader tomorrow by the rank and file had they a chance to vote for him, and he was jettisoned only because the tory MPs who had to work with him were tired of being lied to, and could see for themselves how Johnson is too lazy and feckless to be a real leader. Famously Johnson would sit through a meeting and go with whatever was said by the last person to speak. Farage is much smarter and ruthless than that, and does not have the weakness of a relentless and rapacious erection.
Farage's antics in the European parliament did not dent his popularity, either. A popularity too meagre to win enough votes for a seat via FPTP, but plenty to win a seat via PR. And then he would be in his element.
Trumps visible public antics, likewise, seem to have cemented his popularity among his tens of millions of supporters, not diminished it.
The only way to deal with these people is to ensure they can't get their hands on anything that lends them legitimacy. Get them off the ballot (Trump) or use an electoral system that filters out small and poisonous fish like Farage. This doesn't keep the big parties entirely free of scum, but it took extreme laziness (Johnson) and venality (Sunk) to allow the seepage in of the scum that has, for now, changes the tory party's phenotype to what it seems to have become. And even that is fixable. A good thrashing in the election followed by a majority labour government may help them give their heads a wobble.
That has to be preferable to changing the voting system to one that inevitable gets Farage into parliament, then hoping that greater visibility will work against him. With Corbyn and his ilk on the opposition benches (albeit not in coalition with Labour, one would hope - and yet this is what happens is it not - the extremists join the larger party in coalition government) PR will be the gateway to the normalization of extremism in the UK, and to those on the right, Farage will look increasingly acceptable as he comes up against the new tranche left wing extremists, also there because of PR, on the opposite benches
Well, I remember dolly Draper, and I have watched The Thick of it so I would imagine that spad element is certainly there.
What makes you think it is the core element of either party, though? All big fish have pilot fish.
Do you think there was ever a time when things were different?
My view is that substance and appearance can be different, and sometimes it can be the same. And presently I'd struggle to conceive that Labour are exactly the same as the Tories.
They are the same in that they all use SPADS that are ex average PR people more concerned with what (they think) is popular rather than what's right, and it's those SPADs that are pretty much driving policy approach in both parties. You can dispute it as much as you like but it is what it is.And Labour in government are exactly the same ? When in the last 18 months was this
- Jul 10, 2003
- 25,885
I don't dispute it at all and agree that the SPADS have an awful lot of power in agreeing party policy, probably too much, but it's all about votes and it's been happening for years, Cummings, Alastair Campbell, Bernard Ingham (nearly 50 years)
When you said 'working with Government departments', I thought you were referring to the way a Government runs the country which is primarily down to the way the Government interacts with the Civil service and the biggest change in this relationship (from individuals involved) has been during the change from the May Government to the Johnson one and the amount of influence SPADS have on that relationship.
The Civil Service employ some of the top expertise in the country across a huge number of areas and, prior to the Johnson Government, they would always be involved in understanding, predicting and shaping the impact of policies on the country. It's an area that prior to 2019, wasn't overly affected by SPADS. That all changed in 2019 with the arrival of Johnson and Cummings (I could do the 'Don't need experts' line but that would be a cheapshot)
Although, I'm sure purely coincidentally, it was also the change to the most inexperienced Cabinet in history. And the vast majority of the current Government and the current PM Sunak have only ever experienced working in that very different environment.
That's why I was asking what Labour had done in this area in the last 18 months
Last edited:
Government decides to pick a fight with Ukrainian refugees
Market research. Very important
But it is up to the leadership how they decide to respond.
Not sure what cesspit the Tories have been dredging. They have certainly been gleefully responding with full steam ahead (at the helm of the Titanic) gusto.
Not seen any reactionary old shite policy initiatives from labour, however
Yep.And could you imagine the one nation conservatives electing him leader
Even if the Labour and Conservative parties only split into two parties each, the political landscape would be so very different under PR
Even worse.
How many countries has this actually happened in? Apart from the Israel example you've used previously, which is a somewhat flawed comparison for all sorts of pretty obvious reasons.
We could throw in Weimar Germany I suppose. That was always the classic "don't question our brilliant voting system" example in my Soc Ed lessons at school. Although given the differences in history and politics between modern Britain and 30s Germany I don't think that comparison holds up either.
It does feel like a variation of the "women/working class men/middle class men can't be trusted to vote" argument that was trotted out every time anybody tried to extend the franchise.
Germany in 30s? Luckily without consequence. Oh, hang on....
And here? The Brits have an untapped nutter contingent. Invite them in by all means....
Or...... best not, eh?
Baldseagull
Well-known member
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.Germany in 30s? Luckily without consequence. Oh, hang on....
And here? The Brits have an untapped nutter contingent. Invite them in by all means....
Or...... best not, eh?
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 14,863
BBC News - Cameron government knew Post Office ditched Horizon IT investigation https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68146054
Same party, different wrong'uns.
Same party, different wrong'uns.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,316
most of them? across europe far left and far right parties are routinely voted into their parliaments. the right have been on a bit of surge lately, in Italy the Brothers of Italy, described as most right wing since the war, are in government. last year election in Netherlands saw a right-wing populist anti-immigration party PVV win the most seats. in Germany you have AFD, sufficently right that recently have been called a threat to democracy. though they do represent the views of many and their elected representatives seen as a virtue of PR, right?
Is the political, societal or historic context in Britain even vaguely comparable to 30s Germany?Germany in 30s? Luckily without consequence. Oh, hang on....
And here? The Brits have an untapped nutter contingent. Invite them in by all means....
Or...... best not, eh?
No. It's not. Notwithstanding that the Nazis had to have a coup shortly after the November 1932 election when they had a reduced share of the vote to seize power anyway.
No country's immune to nutcasism, but the idea that given free reign to vote for whomever they like the British will suddenly vote Nazi seems like wild scaremongering.
As you say, the right have been on a surge generally across many countries.
It is entirely possible that in Italy or Holland the governments would look even more right wing under alternative systems where the winner of an election gets an exaggerated portion of the seats. A similar movement could be pointed to in America or France (where every few years everybody has kittens over whether they'll finally elect a Le Pen). There are reasons for that shift that go well beyond the voting system of any individual country.