[Politics] Italian government

[Weststander]

Labour can't do anything other than oppose the SNP. The SNP would support Labour only if Labour promised another referendum, which the SNP would win. All labour can do is strongly voice opposition to a referendum (which is what the tories have done and why they have 6 seats in Scotland to Labour's 1).

The SNP have stated that support can only ever be on a bill by bill basis. They’d refuse a coalition or similar.

 

[Biscuit]

That’s the progressive alliance hope of some left wing voters, anything to get the Tories out.

In reality, even in the last 7 days, Labour figures have made it plain that they won’t work with the SNP, there was very good analysis on the radio recently of Labour-LibDems having been very long-term adversaries (“they can’t stand each other”) at local and national level. The SNP would just manipulate Labour to gain independence.

Without Scotland it would be touch and go. In England at the 2019 GE right wing and centre right parties took 49.3% of the vote.

Nothing you've said there makes me think a progressive alliance or moving to PR is a bad thing.

 

[Weststander]

Nothing you've said there makes me think a progressive alliance or moving to PR is a bad thing.

I do understand the pluses.

Genuine question … were you 100% pro PR in the noughties?

(Obviously asking, to see if you liked FPTP when Blair/Brown had all the power).

 

[Eric the meek]

Historically I might have agreed with you, but I think has politics has changed over the last few years. The Conversatives used to be a broad church of beliefs, now they're dominated by the ultra-hardline ERG. Anyone towards the center (Nicholas Soames, Rory Stewart, Ken Clarke etc) have all been booted out. This horrible shift towards populism has results in extreme voices ruling the roost. Moving to PR would result in more moderate voices imo and better representation, which is a good thing.

I agree with all of that, but have reservations about your last sentence. I haven't really seen any evidence to back up the idea that PR would result in more moderate voices. I realise that this could be due to there not being any because we don't use PR ! As [MENTION=21158]Weststander[/MENTION] has indicated, because PR works/doesn't work in other countries, it doesn't mean the same thing will happen here.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That’s always been my suspicion, long before the ludicrous binary politics in the UK today.

Some nations eg Denmark, Germany, Norway just seem more grown up.

We’d fall into the hopeless hung parliament category with Belgium, Italy.

Recently I was persauded to look into PR and STV. But according to wiki "Under STV, multiple winners are selected for a constituency ". I don't want that! One winner per constituency.

I thought this could be done by PR.

Perhaps I'm just stupid. But my guess is that if I can't be persuaded by something simple and clear, others won't be either.

 

[Eric the meek]

Recently I was persauded to look into PR and STV. But according to wiki "Under STV, multiple winners are selected for a constituency ". I don't want that! One winner per constituency.

I thought this could be done by PR.

Perhaps I'm just stupid. But my guess is that if I can't be persuaded by something simple and clear, others won't be either.

Don't forget that 52% of the electorate believed what they read on the side of a bus.

Never underestimate the ability of the electorate to be persuaded by something simple, clear, punchy and made up.

 

[beorhthelm]

Recently I was persauded to look into PR and STV. But according to wiki "Under STV, multiple winners are selected for a constituency ". I don't want that! One winner per constituency.

I thought this could be done by PR.

Perhaps I'm just stupid. But my guess is that if I can't be persuaded by something simple and clear, others won't be either.

all forms of PR are incompatible with single seat constituencies. best fit you'll get would be something at county level.

 

[Goldstone1976]

It’s been a while since I’ve seen a better example of an oxymoron than ‘Italian Government’; it’s up there with ‘Military Intelligence’.

Brilliant country though

 

[nicko31]

Italy are in a quite a similar position to us, non functioning government till the Autumn.

At least the public will get to decide their fate as their 2023 election will be pulled forward

 

[BN41Albion]

It’s been a while since I’ve seen a better example of an oxymoron than ‘Italian Government’; it’s up there with ‘Military Intelligence’.

Brilliant country though

Yep - flawed country with a very violent underbelly (mafia/ultras etc) but a brilliant country nonetheless

 

[zefarelly]

I don't think we, as a country are in any way qualified to criticise Italian politics. Joint top of the incompetent corrupt shit show league.

Italy is without doubt the best country for food and vehicles.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

think their main parties are closer together, makes coalitions easier.

for PR to work here we'd need to have the major factions within Conservatives and Labour split so you end up with a 3 centrist parties (inc Liberals) and a few nutter left/right/green groups. and i wonder if PR might precipitate such a split because they'd not need to be wedded together.

I agree. I think the ERG ought to form their own party to allow the Conservatives to return to the right of centre. Getting a 4th Prime Minister in 6 years when the same party has been in control for the last 12 doesn't help anybody.

 

[Smirko]

Another reason why PR is/would be a disaster (Israel also just replaced PM again...) and FPTP at least gives a stable government

 

[Questions]

I don't think we, as a country are in any way qualified to criticise Italian politics. Joint top of the incompetent corrupt shit show league.

Italy is without doubt the best country for food and vehicles.

And women

 

[WATFORD zero]

I do understand the pluses.

Genuine question … were you 100% pro PR in the noughties?

(Obviously asking, to see if you liked FPTP when Blair/Brown had all the power).

I've always supported PR (and, as you know, that's a long time). The reasons to me are very simple. The Government should reflect the electorate's voting proportions and not swing from huge majorities one side to huge majorities the other based on a couple of percentage points, thus allowing the incoming 'victors' to blame everything on 'the Government before' and start doing the opposite.

I also think it would break up the 'coalitions' that exist in the Main parties and stop them ignoring their principles at the first sniff of 'complete power'. I think we have seen examples of both major parties getting taken over by the extreme wings in the hunt for power. I also believe that it would result in more parties with more specific principles, agendas and policies.

Because what we currently have very obviously isn't fit for the 21st century

 

[Eric the meek]

I hope he will find his way to this hidden gem - Scala Contarini del Bovolo

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...220px-Scala_Contarini_del_Bovolo_(Venice).jpg

It's not at all easy to find, even after you've been to it several times.

He should climb to the top just before noon, when he will be treated to an orchestra of church bells for the Angelus prayer, from churches across the city.

Magical.

 

[Biscuit]

I do understand the pluses.

Genuine question … were you 100% pro PR in the noughties?

(Obviously asking, to see if you liked FPTP when Blair/Brown had all the power).

Good question. Yes, I've always been pro PR. I've always believed FPTP sees too many candidates elected with a very small share of the vote. In contrast, PR ensures requires greater consensus in policy-making, which I find more appealing. I've very much a centrist though, so appreciate people will dislike PR for the very reasons I like it.

 

[Biscuit]

I agree with all of that, but have reservations about your last sentence. I haven't really seen any evidence to back up the idea that PR would result in more moderate voices. I realise that this could be due to there not being any because we don't use PR ! As [MENTION=21158]Weststander[/MENTION] has indicated, because PR works/doesn't work in other countries, it doesn't mean the same thing will happen here.

It's a fair argument. I can't prove it one way or the other. My hunch is PR would result in better representation and less wasted votes. Less wasted votes could lead to higher turn out and reduced voter apathy. The result of which, I believe, would be more moderate voices. I appreciate my conclusion here could be argued. Eitherway hopefully it would reduce the likelihood of the pitful choice we had at the last election: ERG vs Momentum.

Would PR work here? I've no idea. And I can see why people are against it after FPTP has delivered stable Governments for hundreds of years, but times are achanging and our democracy should reflect that.

 

[warmleyseagull]

I thought 'Italian government' was an oxymoron.

 

[Eeyore]

PR seems to suit some countries better than others, Germany a success.

Perhaps to do with a nation’s psyche?

Quite. The Krauts know how to discuss things sensibly. Proportional representation is the best outworking of a truly democratic model. The argument that it doesn't work is directly proportional to those involved.

They say the UK is a Conservative country, yet under PR the right wing would not have formed a majority for decades. Thatcher would never have been a thing.