Political Discussions And Ranting Thread

[Sod's Law 445]

2 hours ago, Toast said:

 

Yes.  But how?

Labour forming a coalition government with the Lib Dems (and the Lib Dems making a PR referendum a prerequisite for their support) would be the most likely avenue, but still by no means guaranteed unfortunately. 

[TQR 14,397]

19 minutes ago, Sod's Law said:

Labour forming a coalition government with the Lib Dems (and the Lib Dems making a PR referendum a prerequisite for their support) would be the most likely avenue, but still by no means guaranteed unfortunately. 

 

Which, again, not likely to happen this upcoming GE. 2029 or beyond, maybe.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

6 hours ago, Bibliogryphon said:

Both the Conservatives and Labour are now both uneasy coalitions and Brexit has shot a bolt right through party politics I think now is the time where we have to reconsider the current voting system and introduce a form of Proportional Representation. It will free up the wings of the parties that disagree with each other to breakaway and we might get a more grown up approach to coalition.

 

Politically the distance between Kier Starmer and Ken Clarke is a lot shorter than it is between Kier Starmer and Jeremy Corbyn or Ken Clarke and Suella Braverman

 

5 hours ago, TQR said:

It's a shame that Starmer et al are so quick to shut the door on changes to the vote system, but if the Tories are still weak come GE 2029 (as they should be) that might be the time for a pro-PR vote. Lib Dem and Green would do very well out of this if the pro-PR movement gained traction.

 

Frustrating that this is 5 years down the line though innit.

 

Another excellent discussion. Article in today's 'i' by Vernon Bogdanor on this very issue, about how Labour are on course for a 270-seat majority on the latest Ipsos poll (imagine!) but are unlikely to get more than 50% of the vote and how FPTP worked when Labour and the Tories got 85% of the vote but isn't fit for purpose in a multi-party system. He notes that the Thatcher landslides of 1983 and 1987 and the Labour landslides of 1997 and 2001 were all gained with around 41-43% of the vote and that Reform will likely outpoll the Lib Dems but broad support will see them net no seats while the Lib Dems could end up with 30+ due to focused support. He argues electoral reform is necessary. I've copied it below as I was going to post the link, but it's behind a sign-up wall.

 

Spoiler

OPINION

By Vernon Bogdanor

How Starmer can win a record landslide despite more than half the country opposing him

An electoral system should ensure that the majority rules and that all significant minorities are represented -  our system fulfils neither requirement

April 21, 2024 1:40 pm(Updated April 22, 2024 11:31 am)

 

No one can predict the outcome of the next election. Opinion polls offer a photograph not a prediction. Nevertheless every photograph since late 2022 indicates a Labour landslide.

The latest Ipsos-MORI poll of voting intentions is:

Labour 44%

Conservatives 19%

Reform UK 13%

Liberal Democrats 8%

Green 9%

SNP – 3%.

On these percentages, Labour would, apparently, win around 460 of the 650 seats, – an overall majority of 270 – even though opposed by nearly three fifths of the voters.

Reform UK could come second in many constituencies, but would be lucky to win any seats since its support is spread fairly evenly across the country. In 2015 Ukip, its predecessor party, won 12% of the vote, but just one seat.

The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, could apparently win more than 40 seats on a lower vote than Reform UK, their vote being more efficiently concentrated in Home Counties and southern constituencies where the Tory vote is collapsing. The SNP, despite recent loss of support, could win around 30 seats on just 3% of the national vote.

An electoral system should, first, ensure that the majority rules; second that all significant minorities are represented. Our system currently fulfils neither requirement. It yields instead government by the largest minority which it rewards with a landslide, while representing minorities only in somewhat haphazard fashion.

The system worked reasonably when only the Conservatives and Labour were in contention, gaining, at every election from 1945 to 1974, at least 85% of the vote between them. It works less well in a multi-party system. Since 1974, it has produced three hung parliaments – in February 1974, 2010 and 2017 – and landslides based on a minority of the popular vote. Margaret Thatcher’s two landslides in 1983 and 1987 were won on 42% of the vote, Tony Blair’s in 1997 and 2001 on 43% and 41% of the vote.

The electoral system also misrepresents attitudes in the nations and regions. In Scotland in 2015, the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats. The unwary might conclude that Scotland was overwhelmingly separatist. Yet, the SNP had won just 50% of the vote. In 2019 the SNP was to win 48 of 59 Scottish seats on 45% of the vote. Both times, Unionists were scandalously under-represented. The electoral system had converted a multi-party system into single-party dominance.

 

In the North East of England in 2017 Labour won 90% of the seats, although the Conservatives had gained 35% of the vote. In the South West, by contrast, the Conservatives won 90% of the seats but Labour had gained 30% of the vote. The Conservative minority in the North East and Labour minority in the South West were almost wholly unrepresented and so their interests were barely recognised in Parliament.

Representation in the Commons should reflect support in the country. But, under our system, the number of seats a party wins depends not only upon how many votes it gets but on how those votes are distributed. A party whose votes are spread evenly will be under-represented, while a party whose vote is concentrated will be over-represented.

 

Still, some might suggest, the public seem perfectly happy with the system, despite its anomalies. In 2011, in the referendum on the alternative vote, change was rejected by a three to one majority on a derisory 42% turnout.

The alternative vote, however, would have done little to remedy the mismatch between votes and seats. Indeed, in some elections, for example 1945 and 1966, it would have increased the mismatch by giving Labour an even larger majority than it in fact obtained. That was because Labour would almost certainly have attracted more second preference votes than the Conservatives from defeated Liberal candidates.

Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, a party which has long favoured proportional representation, admitted that the alternative vote was not proportional, declaring before the 2010 election that it was a “miserable little compromise”, although that did not stop him campaigning for it as Deputy Prime Minister in the referendum.

Defeat of the alternative vote in 2011 was seen as an endorsement of the status quo, and the issue of reform died away.

The 2024 election, however, is likely to bring it back to life.

Sir Vernon Bogdanor is professor of government, King’s College, London.

 

For my two-penneth, I am a convert to PR. While seeing its obvious representational benefits, I was always opposed due to the endless probability for weak coalitions it produced and the likelihood of gridlock. As it is, we've had that anyway in recent years with Brexit and such like, so if that's the case, we may as well have a broad range of voices fighting for different ideas and learn how to compromise. Single Transferable Vote seems fairest, and Additional Member System could work too, like in Scotland and Wales. I think it's important that whichever system is used, we still have individual representatives in each constituency, not just Labour got 45% of the vote so get 45% of the Parliament representing nobody. As for when this happens, who knows. It feels like it will become inevitable, and Vernon Bogdanor seems to suggest 2024 may be the catalyst. Unless one of the main two parties commits to it and follows through when in power (unlikely) then it will be a condition of a coalition arrangement, and then we have the issue of agreeing to a new form. Grown-ups could reach a decision like in years gone by, but the question is whether we have any grown-ups left, particularly on the blue side of the chamber after the election.

 

It's clear to me that the Tories aren't credible - in the same 'i' this morning, there's an article with Truss saying there's a Blairite establishment thwarting her plans and this was agreed with by Richard Tice, who called the Tories 'socialist' and that Sunak isn't a conservative. Truss is very clearly in the wrong party now, or else Reform will cease and be merged into a new Tory Party. She's already said she wants Farage as an MP. Could Truss and Braverman and co. jump ship and join Reform and allow the One Nationers to reform the Conservative Party, or will the loonies take over the asylum and force the One Nationers out once and for all to form their own political movement? Like the one Anna Soubry and Chukka Umuna and co. tried to form a few years back, so successful I can't actually remember its name...

[Sod's Law 445]

12 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

 

 

  Hide contents

OPINION

By Vernon Bogdanor

How Starmer can win a record landslide despite more than half the country opposing him

An electoral system should ensure that the majority rules and that all significant minorities are represented -  our system fulfils neither requirement

April 21, 2024 1:40 pm(Updated April 22, 2024 11:31 am)

 

No one can predict the outcome of the next election. Opinion polls offer a photograph not a prediction. Nevertheless every photograph since late 2022 indicates a Labour landslide.

The latest Ipsos-MORI poll of voting intentions is:

Labour 44%

Conservatives 19%

Reform UK 13%

Liberal Democrats 8%

Green 9%

SNP – 3%.

On these percentages, Labour would, apparently, win around 460 of the 650 seats, – an overall majority of 270 – even though opposed by nearly three fifths of the voters.

Reform UK could come second in many constituencies, but would be lucky to win any seats since its support is spread fairly evenly across the country. In 2015 Ukip, its predecessor party, won 12% of the vote, but just one seat.

The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, could apparently win more than 40 seats on a lower vote than Reform UK, their vote being more efficiently concentrated in Home Counties and southern constituencies where the Tory vote is collapsing. The SNP, despite recent loss of support, could win around 30 seats on just 3% of the national vote.

An electoral system should, first, ensure that the majority rules; second that all significant minorities are represented. Our system currently fulfils neither requirement. It yields instead government by the largest minority which it rewards with a landslide, while representing minorities only in somewhat haphazard fashion.

The system worked reasonably when only the Conservatives and Labour were in contention, gaining, at every election from 1945 to 1974, at least 85% of the vote between them. It works less well in a multi-party system. Since 1974, it has produced three hung parliaments – in February 1974, 2010 and 2017 – and landslides based on a minority of the popular vote. Margaret Thatcher’s two landslides in 1983 and 1987 were won on 42% of the vote, Tony Blair’s in 1997 and 2001 on 43% and 41% of the vote.

The electoral system also misrepresents attitudes in the nations and regions. In Scotland in 2015, the SNP won 56 out of 59 seats. The unwary might conclude that Scotland was overwhelmingly separatist. Yet, the SNP had won just 50% of the vote. In 2019 the SNP was to win 48 of 59 Scottish seats on 45% of the vote. Both times, Unionists were scandalously under-represented. The electoral system had converted a multi-party system into single-party dominance.

 

In the North East of England in 2017 Labour won 90% of the seats, although the Conservatives had gained 35% of the vote. In the South West, by contrast, the Conservatives won 90% of the seats but Labour had gained 30% of the vote. The Conservative minority in the North East and Labour minority in the South West were almost wholly unrepresented and so their interests were barely recognised in Parliament.

Representation in the Commons should reflect support in the country. But, under our system, the number of seats a party wins depends not only upon how many votes it gets but on how those votes are distributed. A party whose votes are spread evenly will be under-represented, while a party whose vote is concentrated will be over-represented.

 

Still, some might suggest, the public seem perfectly happy with the system, despite its anomalies. In 2011, in the referendum on the alternative vote, change was rejected by a three to one majority on a derisory 42% turnout.

The alternative vote, however, would have done little to remedy the mismatch between votes and seats. Indeed, in some elections, for example 1945 and 1966, it would have increased the mismatch by giving Labour an even larger majority than it in fact obtained. That was because Labour would almost certainly have attracted more second preference votes than the Conservatives from defeated Liberal candidates.

Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, a party which has long favoured proportional representation, admitted that the alternative vote was not proportional, declaring before the 2010 election that it was a “miserable little compromise”, although that did not stop him campaigning for it as Deputy Prime Minister in the referendum.

Defeat of the alternative vote in 2011 was seen as an endorsement of the status quo, and the issue of reform died away.

The 2024 election, however, is likely to bring it back to life.

Sir Vernon Bogdanor is professor of government, King’s College, London.

 

For my two-penneth, I am a convert to PR. While seeing its obvious representational benefits, I was always opposed due to the endless probability for weak coalitions it produced and the likelihood of gridlock. As it is, we've had that anyway in recent years with Brexit and such like, so if that's the case, we may as well have a broad range of voices fighting for different ideas and learn how to compromise. Single Transferable Vote seems fairest, and Additional Member System could work too, like in Scotland and Wales. I think it's important that whichever system is used, we still have individual representatives in each constituency, not just Labour got 45% of the vote so get 45% of the Parliament representing nobody. As for when this happens, who knows. It feels like it will become inevitable, and Vernon Bogdanor seems to suggest 2024 may be the catalyst. Unless one of the main two parties commits to it and follows through when in power (unlikely) then it will be a condition of a coalition arrangement, and then we have the issue of agreeing to a new form. Grown-ups could reach a decision like in years gone by, but the question is whether we have any grown-ups left, particularly on the blue side of the chamber after the election.

 

 

Yeah, one benefit that was always said about FPTP was that it produced stable one party governments with a clear mandate and kept the loonie fringe parties out, an argument which has been shot to pieces in both Britain and America this past few years. The fact that Truss, Kwarteng, etc are still even in the Tory party speaks volumes. The loonies who would otherwise be in those fringe parties end up joining one of the main parties and morphing it out of all recognition. Like how Reagan would have despised Trump and what's become of his party today, playing along to Moscow's playbook. 

 

It's true that Reform UK may end up with a few seats if PR was introduced, but guess what? Coalition pacts between more moderate parties to keep the more fringe parties out of government exist in other countries. They can exist here. 

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

47 minutes ago, Sod's Law said:

It's true that Reform UK may end up with a few seats if PR was introduced, but guess what? Coalition pacts between more moderate parties to keep the more fringe parties out of government exist in other countries. They can exist here. 

 

Although it is also the case that we are starting to see mainstream parties doing deals with the devil to get into power, from the Netherlands to Italy to Israel. Making it worthwhile voting for a fringe party (because they get representation) can end up amplifying those views and making them more mainstream, with unpredictable results. But, on paper, the dream scenario is that Labour, Lib Dems and Greens could almost always form a majority with more than 50% of the vote, and even if not, the worst we'd end up with is a Tory-led coalition propped up by more Liberal parties. I can't see a situation where we end up with 2 parties on the right large enough to go into coalition alone, but if it meant getting into power, maybe a One Nation Tory party could do a deal with Reform.

[TQR 14,397]

 

Apologies for briefly interrupting this very high brow and well considered discussion with something childish. Anyway, as you all were...

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,044]

1 hour ago, Sod's Law said:

 

Yeah, one benefit that was always said about FPTP was that it produced stable one party governments

I hate this argument because it's never a guarantee, since 2010, 2 of the 4 election haven't produced majority governments (2010 & 2017). And the less said about the debacle in 1974 the better. And then there's 1951 which did produce a majority government for the Conservatives despite them getting 0.8% less of the vote than Labour.

[The Old Crem 3,606]

1 hour ago, Sod's Law said:

 

Yeah, one benefit that was always said about FPTP was that it produced stable one party governments with a clear mandate and kept the loonie fringe parties out, an argument which has been shot to pieces in both Britain and America this past few years. The fact that Truss, Kwarteng, etc are still even in the Tory party speaks volumes. The loonies who would otherwise be in those fringe parties end up joining one of the main parties and morphing it out of all recognition. Like how Reagan would have despised Trump and what's become of his party today, playing along to Moscow's playbook. 

 

It's true that Reform UK may end up with a few seats if PR was introduced, but guess what? Coalition pacts between more moderate parties to keep the more fringe parties out of government exist in other countries. They can exist here. 

That used to be the case but with the trend in Europe for the far right coming into power or influence via PR it’s arguably an argument against it. 

[Toast 16,140]

All I want is for the country to be run by honest, competent grown-ups who put the country's and the people's interests before their own.

Yes I know it's too much to ask now.

[Sod's Law 445]

1 hour ago, The Old Crem said:

That used to be the case but with the trend in Europe for the far right coming into power or influence via PR it’s arguably an argument against it. 

Because FPTP has worked so well at preventing that... 

[Commtech Sio Bibble 2,044]

To change the subject slightly I find it laughable that currently the unelected prime minister is forcing parliament to keep voting until they give up trying to stop a policy not supported by the majority of the public. Democracy in action.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

1 hour ago, Commtech Sio Bibble said:

I hate this argument because it's never a guarantee, since 2010, 2 of the 4 election haven't produced majority governments (2010 & 2017). And the less said about the debacle in 1974 the better. And then there's 1951 which did produce a majority government for the Conservatives despite them getting 0.8% less of the vote than Labour.

 

True but...it did provide big majorities at other times. Thatcher and Blair could only make the revolutionary changes they did because they had huge majorities in Parliament. Likewise Boris and his bullshit Brexit deal.

 

It's fallen apart, as we've said, because of the multi-party system we've now got, sometimes seeing voters committed enough to a third party to elect them in spite of FPTP, or else encouraging radicals to join the main parties and making them too broad a tent to form a cohesive government. Either way, it's started producing chaotic governments with alarming regularity.

[The Old Crem 3,606]

I do wonder that if the Rwanda flights get off before the election is called  will Labour still run on a cancelling them platform? Or decide it’s better to take the whole issue of the table as an election issue. 

[maryportfuncity 10,646]

[DCI Frank Burnside 3,887]

 

[TQR 14,397]

The Rwanda scheme is going to cost £1.8m per person. 

 

Tell you what Rishi, give me just £1m and I'll fuck out of the UK for good and someone destined for the plane can stay here, how's that?

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

57 minutes ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

 

Sometimes, I do wonder how different things might have been had Davis beaten Cameron in 2005...

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

11 minutes ago, TQR said:

The Rwanda scheme is going to cost £1.8m per person. 

 

Tell you what Rishi, give me just £1m and I'll fuck out of the UK for good and someone destined for the plane can stay here, how's that?

 

Better still, I'm pretty sure Farage would fuck off elsewhere if we gave him a million pounds. And 30p Lee. And Gullis. And...well not Rishi, he's got £1m lying down the back of the Downing Street sofa.

[RoverAndOut 4,746]

 

Amen, Steve. What a shitshow.

[An Fear Beag 1,535]

48 minutes ago, TQR said:

The Rwanda scheme is going to cost £1.8m per person. 

 

Tell you what Rishi, give me just £1m and I'll fuck out of the UK for good and someone destined for the plane can stay here, how's that?

Am I missing something here? Would it not be cheaper and easier to buy them a house and chuck them half a million quid to live on, rather than spending £1.8m a head like this?

 

I get that it is supposed to act as some sort of deterrent. But these are people who have travelled half way around the world in the back of a sealed-up truck, or sailed across the Channel on a dustbin lid. If the threat of suffocation or drowning hasn't deterred them, will the threat of a first-class ticket to Rwanda really do the trick?

[TQR 14,397]

37 minutes ago, An Fear Beag said:

Am I missing something here? Would it not be cheaper and easier to buy them a house and chuck them half a million quid to live on, rather than spending £1.8m a head like this?

 

I get that it is supposed to act as some sort of deterrent. But these are people who have travelled half way around the world in the back of a sealed-up truck, or sailed across the Channel on a dustbin lid. If the threat of suffocation or drowning hasn't deterred them, will the threat of a first-class ticket to Rwanda really do the trick?

 

You're missing absolutely nothing. It's that ridiculous. All in the name of pleasing some racists.

[Toast 16,140]

 

[En Passant 3,741]

3 hours ago, DCI Frank Burnside said:

 

 

I'm not proud of this, but my second thought was, the one on the left is a liar.

My first thought was indeed, omg how crass is that? And the third (which should have been second I know - and I'm sort of mortified it wasn't - was why did they allow themselves to be used like that?).

At least I'm being honest I suppose.

[Sly Ronnie 884]

Perhaps it is fair to say the one on the left is a C, for Conservative?

[Toast 16,140]

30 minutes ago, En Passant said:

 

I'm not proud of this, but my second thought was, the one on the left is a liar.

My first thought was indeed, omg how crass is that? And the third (which should have been second I know - and I'm sort of mortified it wasn't - was why did they allow themselves to be used like that?).

At least I'm being honest I suppose.

 

As a female with a sense of humour, I thought it was funny.  The ladies modelling the Tshirts seemed to as well.

Alas, all the things we are not allowed to laugh at now.

 

And on a technical note, cup size is relative to band size, so a DD cup on say a 34" bra is a fair bit smaller than a DD cup on a 40" bra.