Forum menu
You are quite right of course, in the situation we find ourselves in now. Opportunities for everyone have simply diminished, and many more people will struggle in one way or another, or face a worse quality of life, even if they don't fall into that category. However, my point was a general moral one.
I disagree with the EU comment. In general poorer folk are much better of relatively in most EU counties than here. In more equal societies everyone even the heavily taxed rich are happier.
Inequality is also rising in the EU even in the Germany many "normal" working people are struggling, it is lagging behind the UK (probably by a decade or so) and America, but make no mistake the direction of travel is the same.
Fair enough
Let’s not forget that without reform the UK is destined to be governed by parties with absolute majorities that were voted into power by a minority of the population.
But the coalitions that dominated Europe since the end of WW2 aren't functioning all that well now either. I read somewhere that since 2015 there's has been the fastest/largest increase in political parties that have managed to get in parliaments across Europe than ever before, and it hasn't been a benefit to democracy. It takes longer to form governments that can do less, and last less time. it took Germany 6 months not that long ago to form a Govt coalition, The Netherlands didn't have a govt at all for over half a year, it took Spain four go's to get a coalition that lasted longer than a couple of months. When there's fewer political parties, they have to be more centrist, they have to be more collegiate, and study after study shows that single party systems result in govts that make more decisions and stick more broadly to their manifestos.
Western democracies aren't working IMO becasue.1 the excess from the economies has been diverted away from those that need it, (broadly the system from WW2 onwards) 2. residual anger about how the 2008 financial crash was resolved, 3 Mass immigration caused by economic shocks, un-necessary wars and global climate change, 4 Western Govt cosy-ing up to non democratic govt for financial reasons - and the obvious hypocrisy it creates 4. Rise of inequality, 5. Rise in disruptive social media.
I don't think Starmar's govt can solve those issues in its first 5 year term, frankly.
When there’s fewer political parties, they have to be more centrist, they have to be more collegiate, and study after study shows that single party systems result in govts that make more decisions and stick more broadly to their manifestos.
I'm sorry, did you just describe the Tories and Labour as centrist? If you define the centre as between whatever failed right wing think tank policies are en vouge this season then yes, they are both very centrist.
Of course it's easier to stick to manifestos when you have an absolute majority. The problem is those manifestos are designed to appeal to swing voters in a few key seats. You can safely alienate the majority of the population providing you appeal to a couple of hundred thousand voters.
If there is no clear path ahead then it is better to do nothing. Having a government that can do whatever it wants on a whim is not a route to long term stability.
Don't you think it would be better if two decades were spent trying to figure out a way to exit the EU because no one could agree (because any solution would be an obvious and shit compromise) only for a symbolic 'BINO' to finally be agreed because everyone was so sick of it?
Or were you happy leaving all up to BJ to decide?
Bad decisions are very often worse than no decisions.
study after study shows that single party systems result in govts that make more decisions and stick more broadly to their manifestos.
Is that a good thing?
Blair and Cameron banged on about 'change' whereas I agree with Vouvrakis (sp?): Starver's banner is 'no change'.
In general poorer folk are much better of relatively in most EU counties than here.
What does this even mean? How would you prove it is true or false?
I’m sorry, did you just describe the Tories and Labour as centrist?
In comparison to their position broadly since ww2, no not really, in comparison globally or even just against European or near Middle East; yes Id describe them as centrist, although the rise of smaller political parties that have begun to dominate in Europe have had a pull in the UK as well.
The problem is those manifestos are designed to appeal to swing voters in a few key seats. You can safely alienate the majority of the population providing you appeal to a couple of hundred thousand voters.
This of course also describes perfectly the single issue, or narrow view political parties that can be focussed on anti LGBT+, anti immigration, or nationalist policies that have arisen to dominate European multi party coalitions and their effects can outweigh the support they would otherwise achieve in FPTP elections.
Usually quality of life is determined by surveys designed to evaluate this concept, IIRC. Unless you're American in which case they apparently go by individual purchasing power i.e. money.
Re FPTP, you could argue that it has denied e.g. UKIP a seat, however you must agree that they have had a seismic effect on UK politics without ever needing a seat (and the scrutiny that comes with that) as political parties target their vote share in marginal seats.
You could just as easily argue that it has denied Green party a seat. Who knows how many people would have put down Green as a second choice? Probably a lot.
Is that a good thing?
Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Politics is obviously changing, the broad agreements post WW2 are failing, or falling apart everywhere aren't they? and as much as FPTP isn't the best system that ever there was, the answer might not be the traditional European coalition model either as those are failing all over the democratic west as well.
Yes, it's clear that 'something' has happened, and it's not clear what - although it might well simply be social media. We shall wait and see how various political systems handle that as it seems to have happened equally everywhere. Who knows, perhaps FPTP will be effective at shutting out the populists if a progressive rebound threshold is reached.
What does this even mean? How would you prove it is true or false?
What it means is the poorest have a higher % of the income of the richest and there are loads of stats out there to show it.
Pensioners income is a good starting point as is unemployment and in work benefits
After housing costs, UK Gini coefficient is .38, higher than that in European countries ie more unequal.
This of course also describes perfectly the single issue, or narrow view political parties that can be focussed on anti LGBT+, anti immigration, or nationalist policies that have arisen to dominate European multi party coalitions and their effects can outweigh the support they would otherwise achieve in FPTP elections.
Actually, what tends to happen is that populist parties are on the fringes for years, with mainstream parties refusing to work with them.
This leads to increase of support because they are being kept out. Eventually, they end up as a junior partner in a rightwing coalition. At that point their popularity peaks as it becomes obvious their populist bullshit was just that and they are just as ineffective as other parties.
Then another populist party pops up and it's rinse and repeat.
With FPTP UKIP were able to continue being kept out and they were able to continue dragging the Tories and the country further and further right.
Actually gaining power is what kills populist parties.
Other parties obviously do exist and anyone who fancies a bit more of a society along the lines of what Labour should be offering can vote Green, lighter tories can vote Lib Dem (although Labour are now pretty much the same) and fascists can stay on the tory bus as it is going in the right direction
I think it is really down to the two main parties being the largest for a very long time and therefore seem safe with the voters rather than "fringe" parties that they don't know so the majority of votes go between the two well known and trusted? parties.
I think it is really down to the two main parties being the largest for a very long time
No, it's down to FPTP.
People are scared of 'wasting' their votes without realising that by voting for a party they fundamentally don't agree with they might as well take a shite on their ballot paper. In fact that would be a more productive use of their vote.
I've said it before but UKIP are one of the most, if not the most successful party in the modern era. They achieved their objective without ever winning a single seat.
Vote for the party you agree most closely with and your vote will drag the mainstream parties in your direction. Vote for the party most likely to beat the one you really don't like and all you're doing is saying you approve of a bunch of policies you don't approve of.
Once you vote for a party you have absolutely nothing they want. All parties want your vote and if enough people are doing the same thing they will chase you by adjusting their policies to suit you.
So, er, don't vote Labour? You do know what government you'll get? (Clue: it's highly unlikely to be the Greens, though I'm sure Paddy Power will take your money.)
I positively want to see Starmer as PM, heading up a government that's on the side of most of us. Others clearly don't, but you're barmy if you don't want a Tory govt and vote any way other than to unseat your Tory MP. Really safe seats, vote any way you want, obv, go on, indulge yourselves.
And as for vague allusions above to hospitals and kids, and that Starmer is against those things? Really? You don't think that looks a little bit world of your own style daft? (On which point I had a post deleted yesterday which was a link to BBC analysis for a measured view. I guess you can do your own googling.)
You do know what government you’ll get?
You do realise what government you're going to get immediately after Labour?
And people in the UK tend to vote in a Tory government more often than they vote Labour ones.
A vote for Labour is a temporary reprive (and it's arguable just how much difference it's going to make) in a history that is dominated by Tory governments. A vote for Labour is a vote for the status quo which is going to result in the same trajectory we are currently on (and more and more headcase Tory governments).
I positively want to see Starmer as PM, heading up a government that’s on the side of most of us.
If you look at all the manifestos and Labour is the one you agree with most then great. However, the 'side of most of us' comment is wrong. Starmer is on the side of a couple of hundred thousand swing voters. He has to be in a FPTP voting system.
I want PR. As do most labour party members who’ve voted for it at the party conference. How do you propose to get PR under a continuity of Tory governments?
You think a Labour government would introduce PR? Why?
Vote for the party you agree most closely with and your vote will drag the mainstream parties in your direction.
If you can persuade everyone else who feels the same way to do the same thing. Quite tricky, especially when there are multiple issues on the table.
If you can persuade everyone else who feels the same way to do the same thing. Quite tricky, especially when there are multiple issues on the table.
And yet here we are out of the EU.
Thanks in large part to a relatively small number of people switching from Tory to UKIP.
How do you propose to get PR under a continuity of Tory governments?
How do you propose to get PR under Starmer? He has made it clear he prefers just tinkering rather than making serious changes to the electoral process. A cynic might think his cults mantra rather gives away the position eg "who else will you vote for/not voting for starmer is voting for the tories".
So what odds do we think
Tamworth - Chris Pincher held since 2010 with a increased majority in the last election, with 23,000 or so votes, seems to be a straight up fight between Labour and the Tories, last held by Labour in 1997
Mid Bedfordshire - Nadine Dorries, the seat has never been anything other than Tory in the modern era. You need to go back to the 1920s to find a Liberal winner the last time it was briefly held by any other party. Nadine's majority was more than Pincher's overall vote
I mean clearly both sitting MPs are complete toss, but when has that made a difference? Personally I reckon Tamworth is a maybe, Mid Beds I can't see being anything other than Tory.
I want PR.
PR works as well or as badly as any other voting system, it's not a panacea of electoral righteousness by itself. And if you're going to say "It's better than what we have now" Go and ask any German, Spaniard or Dutchman what the introduction, proliferation, and success of radically motivated small fringe parties has done to their coalition based systems recently
And if you’re going to say “It’s better than what we have now” Go and ask any German, Spaniard or Dutchman what the introduction, proliferation, and success of radically motivated small fringe parties has done to their coalition based systems recently
It is better. In case you haven't noticed the extremists are in charge in the UK. Elsewhere things work differently as I explained above:
Actually, what tends to happen is that populist parties are on the fringes for years, with mainstream parties refusing to work with them.
This leads to increase of support because they are being kept out. Eventually, they end up as a junior partner in a rightwing coalition. At that point their popularity peaks as it becomes obvious their populist bullshit was just that and they are just as ineffective as other parties.
Then another populist party pops up and it’s rinse and repeat.
With FPTP UKIP were able to continue being kept out and they were able to continue dragging the Tories and the country further and further right.
Actually gaining power is what kills populist parties.
And if you’re going to say “It’s better than what we have now” Go and ask any German, Spaniard or Dutchman what the introduction, proliferation, and success of radically motivated small fringe parties has done to their coalition based systems recently
Or you could go and ask voters in the UK assemblies where PR already exists and hasn't led to Literally Hitler.
^^^discussable, but either way there’s a substantial campaign in the LP for PR which is gaining traction, as it should with the majority of members and unions in favour.
PR has been popular with the membership for a long time I think? But it's nowhere near being adopted as policy.
In case you haven’t noticed the extremists are in charge in the UK
As they are across European countries within PR designed systems. The problem isn't a democratic deficit. Both European PR and the UK FPTP are designed to return the same sorts of governments; law abiding centrist with broad electoral support, the only difference is that the parties in Europe all the way from radical left wing to radical right wing are separate, where as in the UK those are the Labour and Tory parties.
I don't think we need more democracy, I think we need more engagement with democracy.
PR has been popular with the membership for a long time I think? But it’s nowhere near being adopted as policy.
Proper electoral reform was in the 97 manifesto but thanks to Straw and a few others who didnt like the idea of democracy it got quietly binned off.
Personally I reckon Tamworth is a maybe, Mid Beds I can’t see being anything other than Tory.
I am going with Tamworth being a Labour win as the tories can safely stay home in protest.
Mid Beds given the swing required and neither Labour or the Libs have backed down i expect tory.
Unless that PCC has done things locally to really annoy the tories and nothing seems to have come out in the press.
As they are across European countries within PR designed systems.
Which countries specifically? I would say Hungary. Poland up until this week. Italy, obviously. Who else?
If you mean they are a junior partner in a coalition then that proves my point. Actually being in government exposes them and their rise in popularity comes to a grinding halt.
And even if they end up being the biggest party (like in Italy) they are still severely limited in what they can actually achieve as they are hindered by not having an absolute majority. The Tories can and will do whatever they like with no one to stop them.
It would be very difficult for a country with a coalition government to one day decide to cancel HS2 and sell the bits off so their mates could make a tidy profit. Not impossible but difficult.
It would be even more difficult for them to one day decide to Trigger A50 without the slightest clue on how they were actually going to exit the EU. Again, not impossible, but a lot more difficult.
Proper electoral reform was in the 97 manifesto but thanks to Straw and a few others who didnt like the idea of democracy it got quietly binned off.
Bar in Scotland and Wales. But yeah. I think "gaining traction" is fair with the 2022 conf resolution and something vaguer at the recent one on the current shite electoral system I paraphrase). I don't see any other feasible path to pr for England other than through labour
I don’t see any other feasible path to pr for England other than through labour
Voting for Labour is not going to deliver PR. As long as it's Labour's turn to wear the Captain's hat they would never change the voting system.
Not voting for Labour because they're not going to deliver PR, on the other hand...
Voting Labour has got us the PR we currently have (in Wales and Scotland and local levels) and letting the Tories rule gets us more FPTP (such a in the Mayoral elections). You get electoral reform with both parties... but in opposite directions. If you think FPTP is a major problem, then you need to keep the Tories hands of the electoral systems we use by getting them out, and keeping them out, by whatever means you have.
By-election predictions: Labour to win Tamworth, tories to hold Mid Beds with massively reduced majority - possibly down to c5,000.
As for changing the electoral system - not going to happen but a referendum on the subject would, IMO, produce an interesting result with a sizeable level of support for PR.
As they are across European countries within PR designed systems.
Scotlands system works well by and large despite labours behaviour. The greens do have disproportionate power as a small party holding the balance of power but the main reason for that is the point blank refusal of labour and Lib dem to co operate at all with the SNP. there have been left of centre broadly representational governments since its creation.
Its meant that we have a broader range of parties and representation - compare the westminster election to the holyrood to see the differnce the proprtional sstem makes
2019 Westminster election<br />48 snp on 45% of the vote
6 tory on 25%
4 lib dem on 9%
1 lab on 18%
2021 Holyrood
64 SNP
31 tory
22 labour
8 green
4 lib dem
voting %s were similar - its hard to make a real comparison because of the two votes for Holyrood. FPTP is the key source of a lot of the issues with Westminster and allows as we see small factions of extremists to take control of government. That is so unlikely to happen under a PR system as coalitions would collapse and even in the event of a very rare majority government the majorities will always be slim.
Labours refusal to support PR over many years has cost the country dear. We would have avoided all these tory governments.
Not voting for Labour because they’re not going to deliver PR, on the other hand…
Is sensible. We are probably about 7-9 months before election day and if plenty of people say they arent going to vote labour because of it then Starmer may need to consider his options.
Instead of just chasing the right wing vote and ignoring people because he thinks they will vote for him.
Is sensible. We are probably about 7-9 months before election day and if plenty of people say they arent going to vote labour because of it then Starmer may need to consider his options.
Instead of just chasing the right wing vote and ignoring people because he thinks they will vote for him.
That worked a treat for Corbyn at the last election.