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

[Audax]

Forgive me for my naivety, but if Rory Stewart is your local tory candidate, how could voting for him be a vote for Thick Lizzy?

Because in our current system if you vote for a local Tory candidate you are, by proxy, voting for whoever the Tory party leader is to be PM.

And while in an ideal world everyone would go to a GE and choose the best local candidate to vote for, in the real world the majority vote for whoever represents the party that they want in government (and by extension who they prefer to be PM).

In some seats that's not the case and you do get enough people voting for the local candidate specifically to swing a result. But there's other seats in this country where you could stick a blue rosette on a pig and it'd win.

 

[beorhthelm]

My provisional conclusion, not yet final. is that people think that changing the electoral system to PR will reduce the number of tory MPs and increase the number of MPs from parties they support. Turkeys voting for Easter.

This may or may not be the outcome (and I certainly don't subscribe to the dissolution of the parties theory, from our Narnian correspondent), and so I will offer my hypothesis:

that is the usual driver for PR, to remove Conservatives from power. they more or less said this at Labour conference, they didnt advocate the positives of PR as a system, just that it'll get the tories out.
it would probably lead to break up of the current parties as smaller factions would have more chance. this is what we see abroad and i'm inclinded to think this is a good thing.
STV is of the "every child gets a prize" school, your vote must count towards a winner so you have two, three or more goes.

 

[Weststander]

that is the usual driver for PR, to remove Conservatives from power. they more or less said this at Labour conference, they didnt advocate the positives of PR as a system, just that it'll get the tories out.
it would probably lead to break up of the current parties as smaller factions would have more chance. this is what we see abroad and i'm inclinded to think this is a good thing.
STV is of the "every child gets a prize" school, your vote must count towards a winner so you have two, three or more goes.

Good point, that actually would happen. Over time, two Labour-esque parties … the current bitter LP types calling phone ins slagging off Starmer are a million miles away politically from Starmer/the electable wing. The Greens and LibDems would take so sizeable chunks of the anything-but-Tory and Remain electorate.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Because in our current system if you vote for a local Tory candidate you are, by proxy, voting for whoever the Tory party leader is to be PM.

And while in an ideal world everyone would go to a GE and choose the best local candidate to vote for, in the real world the majority vote for whoever represents the party that they want in government (and by extension who they prefer to be PM).

In some seats that's not the case and you do get enough people voting for the local candidate specifically to swing a result. But there's other seats in this country where you could stick a blue rosette on a pig and it'd win.

If you make that argument (and I accept it), the same applies to any political system for which the party of which your preferred candidate belongs has a leader.

Edit: Shirley?

 

[The Clamp]

Is there anyone here that would vote Tory at a general election?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is there anyone here that would vote Tory at a general election?

 

[The Clamp]

Well maybe. Let’s give it more than six minutes.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well maybe. Let’s give it more than six minutes.

I realized what I'd done, and could have edited my post to look a bit more clever than I am, then thought, **** it.

 

[Goldstone1976]

With that sort of dramatic interpretation, you should be up for an award H

Well if the electorate decide that they want 100 swivel-eyed Marxist loonies, 100 social democrats, 100 liberals, 100 centre right one nationers, 100 swivel-eyed right wing loonies, and 100 'none of the above' then surely that's what they should get ?

But as you and me both know, all the centrist parties from both sides would get the vast majority of seats as voting actually changes very little from election to election, despite it resulting in huge majorities in Parliament, swinging policy wildly from one side to the other every few years.

Apart from the few swivel-eyed loons on NSC who escaped bans or set up new accounts, how many actually support the Labour left or the Tory right ? Besides, I always thought you liked the decisiveness and stability that FPTP brings, which is a very timely argument at the moment

I don't think we are going to find common ground until we have a face to face with a crate of [MENTION=27447]Goldstone1976[/MENTION]'s finest

‘Crate’? Tsk, tsk.

 

[um bongo molongo]

Good point, that actually would happen. Over time, two Labour-esque parties … the current bitter LP types calling phone ins slagging off Starmer are a million miles away politically from Starmer/the electable wing. The Greens and LibDems would take so sizeable chunks of the anything-but-Tory and Remain electorate.

This feels like it would be a good thing. Siphon the nutters off to the left (Momentum) and right (UKIP types) and leave the grown ups to fight it out in the middle. I feel we’d have much better leaders of centrist parties because the membership of both major parties at the moment skews towards the margins of swivel eyed loons (Tories) and socialist Union types (Labour)

 

[TomandJerry]

The Treasury minister responsible for welfare changes wrote a paper saying universal credit claimants should be forced to “work for the dole” on tasks such as cleaning up graffiti or face losing all of their support.

Chris Philp, who as chief secretary to the Treasury is in charge of public spending, made the comments in a 2013 paper for the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

This week Philp refused to say whether benefits would increase in line with inflation as previously promised, although some cabinet ministers are known to be nervous about the idea of a further squeeze on the poorest.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Machiavelli]

[/U][/I][/B]

I'd enjoy that. Bottom line is I don't really know what would be best in the long run, and am dominated in the end by being risk-averse over issues of long term consequence. But I do enjoy a heated debate

I think 'by being conservative' would be better. Who's to say that the nonsense that we've currently got doesn't prove more risky than an alternative?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I think 'by being conservative' would be better. Who's to say that the nonsense that we've currently got doesn't prove more risky than an alternative?

I'm not Conservative. I want to change the government, but not the system.

One doesn't need to be an anarchist to be against Truss!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The Treasury minister responsible for welfare changes wrote a paper saying universal credit claimants should be forced to “work for the dole” on tasks such as cleaning up graffiti or face losing all of their support.

Chris Philp, who as chief secretary to the Treasury is in charge of public spending, made the comments in a 2013 paper for the TaxPayers’ Alliance.

This week Philp refused to say whether benefits would increase in line with inflation as previously promised, although some cabinet ministers are known to be nervous about the idea of a further squeeze on the poorest.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

I have seen him on the telly. Comes across as a self-serving shit.

 

[WATFORD zero]

It is quite amusing tonight seeing Michael Gove gently circling Liz and Kwasi

It's like watching a decrepit vulture on it's last legs circling a big pile of rotting meat

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It is quite amusing tonight seeing Michael Gove gently circling Liz and Kwasi

It's like watching a decrepit vulture on it's last legs circling a big pile of rotting meat

A bit like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0bULxydHX0

 

[Machiavelli]

I'm not Conservative. I want to change the government, but not the system.

One doesn't need to be an anarchist to be against Truss!

Hence the use of conservative, and not Conservative or, indeed, anarchist, liberal or anything else.

 

[darkwolf666]

I have seen him on the telly. Comes across as a self-serving shit.

Or as otherwise known - a Tory minister!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Hence the use of conservative, and not Conservative or, indeed, anarchist, liberal or anything else.

I did see that but decided to ignore it (or interpret it as an insult - haven't made up my mind yet).

Yes, when it comes things that may not be optimal I prefer a tinker, rather than chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

And just because I don't get the government I want at every election, I don't consider it appropriate to change the system.

If that renders me conservative, so be it.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I did see that but decided to ignore it (or interpret it as an insult - haven't made up my mind yet).

Yes, when it comes things that may not be optimal I prefer a tinker, rather than chucking the baby out with the bathwater.

And just because I don't get the government I want at every election, I don't consider it appropriate to change the system.

If that renders me conservative, so be it.

I don't believe there is any insult there. It comes with age and experience that we become more 'conservative'

If I thought for a moment he was suggesting you, me or any other person with an IQ above single figures was, in any way, supporting this current cabal that likes to call itself 'Conservative' I would be in there before you even got your shoes on