[Politics] Liz Truss **RESIGNS 20/10/2022**

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Scapegoated, left bereft of the support of the outraged wing of their membership, and cast into electoral oblivion for a generation? Not sure that's what they wanted....

They were certainly scapegoated, but there was no way a Tory party not in a coalition would have agreed to lower rate of income tax starting at 10k, same sex marriage, referendum on FPTP and quite a lot of other socially liberal policies

Th only time i've ever voted Lib Dem was after that coalition. I was one of the few votes they gained. I want to see politicians work together, compromise and generally behave like adults.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I know, this conversation comes up roughly every 3months and always goes the same way.

Somebody suggests PR
You say you're against it
Somebody (possibly a different person) explains a particular system like STV
You say you're slightly more pro the idea now you've looked into it
Pause for 3months and repeat

I meant it was a crap decision from their own political perspective. I happen to disagree with you re PR, but having had this conversation before I'm not going to waste both of our time by arguing over it

Yes, you're quite correct. My comment mocking the possibility that the Lib Dems would have had a better coalition with the tories if they had arrived in that place via PR was a bit of a needless poke at PR, and you are right that I did eventually agree that people may feel a bit more engaged if they could transfer their second preference (and so on, if necessary) when electing the (single) representative for their constituency.

I shouldn't mock PR and will endeavour to desist, going forward.

That said, I don't think PR would have saved us from Johnson (or the consequences of Johnson). I still consider that the electorate gets the governments they deserve.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

They were certainly scapegoated, but there was no way a Tory party not in a coalition would have agreed to lower rate of income tax starting at 10k, same sex marriage, referendum on FPTP and quite a lot of other socially liberal policies

Th only time i've ever voted Lib Dem was after that coalition. I was one of the few votes they gained. I want to see politicians work together, compromise and generally behave like adults.

I missed that one. What was the outcome?

 

[nicko31]

The Tory party conference is starting to look like a Palace away day...

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I missed that one. What was the outcome?

.
Well, it was lost, but that doesn't change the general point. Government by discussion and consensus surely leads to better outcomes than government by unchecked ideologues. That to me, is the glaring lesson of recent times.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Yes, you're quite correct. My comment mocking the possibility that the Lib Dems would have had a better coalition with the tories if they had arrived in that place via PR was a bit of a needless poke at PR, and you are right that I did eventually agree that people may feel a bit more engaged if they could transfer their second preference (and so on, if necessary) when electing the (single) representative for their constituency.

I shouldn't mock PR and will endeavour to desist, going forward.

That said, I don't think PR would have saved us from Johnson (or the consequences of Johnson). I still consider that the electorate gets the governments they deserve.

Sound.

I don't think we should have STV because it would stop the Conservatives (although after the last 7years I find the idea of them never having an overall majority ever again highly amusing), but because I think the voting system should at least make some attempt to count everybody's vote equally.

I think party list PR systems are the bane of civilisation.

ANYWAY. Moving on.

 

[Stato]

Diluting the FPTP majority with charity seats for minority parties is a recipe for weak government, carve ups and decisions taken in secret in the modern equivalent of in smoke-filled rooms. Sweaty palm-filled WhatsApp groups, perhaps.

We already have the weak government, carve ups and decisions taken in secret. They are just done between politicians who, despite their massively differing views of what is best for the country and how to get there, are all happy to fly under the 'Conservative Party' flag of convenience.

Both the Labour and Conservative parties are broken. There is more agreement between the centrists across the parties, than they have with those on the left and right wings. My views are on the left of Labour, but belief in demoracy requires me to accept that the majority's are not. The current system gives us the situation where a few thousand party members get to decide that Liz Truss should be Prime Minister, or Jeremy Corbyn leader of the opposition. (I agreed with him on a lot of issues, but it was so obvious he had no clue about how to win an election).

The only people to benefit from FPTP are those who get elected because of the colour of their rosettes, generally time serving, nodding dogs. None of the arguments against PR stand up to any scrutiny. I genuinely can't understand what would motivate anyone whose politics are anywhere near the centre to argue for its continuance.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

.
Well, it was lost, but that doesn't change the general point. Government by discussion and consensus surely leads to better outcomes than government by unchecked ideologues. That to me, is the glaring lesson of recent times.

I must confess that I do like grown up leadership, but I also like swift decisive action. Even with a coalition we would still have the game show, game playing nonsense, because every government is auditioning for another term, and seeking to look better by making all the others look shitter. I'm not sure how we can get around this.

If we were to end up at some point with strong stable (coalition) government it may herald a transition to a technocracy, something that I may find I favour (government by qualification and achievement rather than by having the nation bedazzled by and voting for the latest BSD with the brassiest neck). But the game show would have to end. I don't really see how this might happen.

What may facilitate change? Ironically if the next labour government fails to degenerate swiftly into a shit show, wider interest in reform will wither. Nobody wants to change the system when the government is kicking arse.

So ironically, if you favour electoral reform you'll have to hope for more years of political failure, hardship, recession and right- or left-wing shitehousery.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

We already have the weak government, carve ups and decisions taken in secret. They are just done between politicians who, despite their massively differing views of what is best for the country and how to get there, are all happy to fly under the 'Conservative Party' flag of convenience.

Both the Labour and Conservative parties are broken. There is more agreement between the centrists across the parties, than they have with those on the left and right wings. My views are on the left of Labour, but belief in demoracy requires me to accept that the majority's are not. The current system gives us the situation where a few thousand party members get to decide that Liz Truss should be Prime Minister, or Jeremy Corbyn leader of the opposition. (I agreed with him on a lot of issues, but it was so obvious he had no clue about how to win an election).

The only people to benefit from FPTP are those who get elected because of the colour of their rosettes, generally time serving, nodding dogs. None of the arguments against stand up to any scrutiny. I genuinely can't understand what would motivate anyone whose politics are anywhere near the centre to argue for its continuance.

I appreciate that one can deliver a devastating condemnation of FPTP based upon listing all the chicanery, failure and foolhardiness of every government we have ever had, but changing the system assumes that the replacement wouldn't break immediately. I am happy with a bit of STV within constituencies, but what kind of change to the electoral process do you imagine would transform the integrity and effectiveness of HMGs going forward? At very least, it would need to ring a change in the quality of the candidates, would it not?

 

[clapham_gull]

Fair enough, and quite.

So what system do you have up there for mayor? I assume you support the notion of one representative per seat (since you presumably have only one mayor)?

I'm in an important work teams meeting right now, which means I will be available for immediate responses in any ongoing NSC conversation

Supplementary vote.

I like it because it forces the candidates to think outside their core vote and pick up secondary nominations.

What we've experienced in recent times is parties like the Conservatives (and Labour under Corbyn) going gung-ho to attract just their core voters hoping that will get them over the line.

Imagine how policy would change under this lot if the electorate got a secondary vote ?

 

[rogersix]

But if we had PR, then.......

it could've been a lib-lab government still in power now

 

[beorhthelm]

We already have the weak government, carve ups and decisions taken in secret. They are just done between politicians who, despite their massively differing views of what is best for the country and how to get there, are all happy to fly under the 'Conservative Party' flag of convenience.

Both the Labour and Conservative parties are broken. There is more agreement between the centrists across the parties, than they have with those on the left and right wings. My views are on the left of Labour, but belief in demoracy requires me to accept that the majority's are not. The current system gives us the situation where a few thousand party members get to decide that Liz Truss should be Prime Minister, or Jeremy Corbyn leader of the opposition. (I agreed with him on a lot of issues, but it was so obvious he had no clue about how to win an election).

The only people to benefit from FPTP are those who get elected because of the colour of their rosettes, generally time serving, nodding dogs. None of the arguments against PR stand up to any scrutiny. I genuinely can't understand what would motivate anyone whose politics are anywhere near the centre to argue for its continuance.

under PR exactly the same procedure for electing party leaders and therefore Prime Ministers would occur? follow whatever their party rules are. in Germany Scholz wasnt even the winner of a leadership election, came second but then the party decided he was better with the wider electorate.

 

[Titanic]

Is there a decent proportional system that retains some element of local representation and doesn't use top-up lists of party toadies and lickspittles who are virtually guaranteed to get elected?

 

[rippleman]

1) 14 days to elect a party leader from amongst that party's membership from the date the incumbent leader is resigned

2) If the new party leader is in power, 7 days from the new party leader being elected to call a GE

3) GE to take place no more than 6 weeks after 2)

With the election of Truss I think we all know that the senile tory toffs in the shires just can't be trusted. The tories have replaced one incompetent moron with another incompetent moron and dropped us all in deeper shit than we were with the bungle****.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Is there a decent proportional system that retains some element of local representation and doesn't use top-up lists of party toadies and lickspittles who are virtually guaranteed to get elected?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

"STV aims to provide proportional representation based on votes cast in the district where it is used, so that each vote is worth about the same as another."

"An important characteristic of STV is that it enables votes to be cast for individual candidates rather than for parties. Party lists are therefore not needed (as opposed to many other proportional electoral systems)"

 

[CHAPPERS]

I'd like a system where people like JRM can't give their business partner buddies peerages and make them trade ministers williy nilly. Is THAT too much to ask?

 

[Hugo Rune]

Is there a decent proportional system that retains some element of local representation and doesn't use top-up lists of party toadies and lickspittles who are virtually guaranteed to get elected?

I’m sure there is.

Even if there isn’t, FPTP is incredibly undemocratic and needs binning. Boris Johnson and his election campaign increased his party’s share of the vote by just 1.2%, but the Tories received an extra 48 seats for that tiny increase which was seen as a landslide by the media. Jo Swinson and her election campaign increased her party’s share of the vote by 4.2% yet lost one seat and she was forced to resign.

Bonkers.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Supplementary vote.

I like it because it forces the candidates to think outside their core vote and pick up secondary nominations.

What we've experienced in recent times is parties like the Conservatives (and Labour under Corbyn) going gung-ho to attract just their core voters hoping that will get them over the line.

Imagine how policy would change under this lot if the electorate got a secondary vote ?

Is that having a second choice? Presumably this requires that the 'winner' needs more than a simple majority (or how is the second choice relevant?), and that without one the second choice vote is counted? Or is their a weighting (with first choice candidate getting a weighting of X and second choice getting a weighting of less than X)?

The trouble with anything not FPTP is that as soon as the voter becomes unsure what they are voting for they don't bother. This may not be an issue in Germany and other sophisticated nations, but we have an awful lot of ignorant, irritable and disengaged people among our electorate. The answer to that may, of course, be **** them.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I’m sure there is.

Even if there isn’t, FPTP is incredibly undemocratic and needs binning. Boris Johnson and his election campaign increased his party’s share of the vote by just 1.2%, but the Tories received an extra 48 seats for that tiny increase which was seen as a landslide by the media. Jo Swinson and her election campaign increased her party’s share of the vote by 4.2% yet lost one seat and she was forced to resign.

Bonkers.

Playing Devil's advocate.... 1.2% of a lot may be far more than 4.2% of a little. Also, if it isn't, then given that the liberals must understand PR (as they favour it as a policy position) why would they make their leader resign when they had made significant inroads in what some would regard as real terms?

My point here, if I have one, is that people understand FPTP but, with the greatest will in the world, it seems that most people don't understand anything other than FPTP. And this is of course a barrier to change.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'd like a system where people like JRM can't give their business partner buddies peerages and make them trade ministers williy nilly. Is THAT too much to ask?

That's about parliamentary standards.

After Johnson was caught with his literal and metaphorical cock in everything, he was allowed to change the standards so that 'must' was replaced repeatedly with 'should', with the latter word meaning that you may ignore the rule if you feel like it. That's what a classical education allows you to concoct. And those who booted him out do not yet see fit to mend the breach. Fancy that.