[Politics] The Johnson gambit

[Happy Exile]

I don't have any problem with a coaltition. If the numbers of seats won means that no single party has a majority then a coaltion makes absolute sense. I really don't mind a coalition if that is how the cookie crumbles. It is how we get to a coalition that bothers me.

My beef is with PR. PR (apparently) guarantees coalitions. Why is that good?

Voters currently vote for one individual, usually because they represent the party they favour at the time. Nobody actually votes for a coalition. One may accept it as an outcome (albeit many don't and would prefer a second ballot), but to desire it? Why? To stop extremism? We all know the answer to that one. No it must be something to do with 'fairness'.

Of course we could radically change the system so that we no longer vote for one candidate. We could be allowed to vote for, say, up to five out of a possible fifteen on a ballot. That would allow us to pick and mix candidates from different parties, so that a coaltition of our desired flavour is created.

However with that, there is even less chance each voter would get what they want. If I want a parliament that is run by a coalition which is itself 60% labour and 40% green, and instead I get a coalition that is 80% labour (too laboury) 10% green and 10% libdem, then I am not getting what I voted for and (in the time-honoured tradition of those unsatisfied with our electoral system) would have the right to be outraged at the unfairness of it all. Every election.

Let's face it, in nations that have PR, their societies, voters and politicians are rather different from ours. Maybe they go to the ballot box in the certain knowledge that their preferred party will almost certainly not win, yet content that the more likely outcome, a coalition, will at least result in some of their heartfelt desires being met. That is, of course if the coalition was 'centre right' and you are right wing. What if the outcome was centre left? I suppose the answer one may give is that most people are in the centre so it hardly matters. A bit like coffee with or without sugar versus with or without milk*.

Somehow the idea of a phlegmatic electorate and a similar phlegmatic news media network in the UK seems a bit unlikely (albeit maybe I'm living in the past).

Perhaps the news media and the politicians would change if we had PR. Maybe. But right now any coalition we might have in the UK will be made up of the same mix of the dutiful backbencher type and the psychopathic gobshite, with the latter rising up to the leadership roles, whatever the system by which they obtain their seat, with the newmedia doing their usual thing.

All that said....perhaps we may start to consider changing the system....the problem of course is this has to be triggered by the government itself, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

But.... just as with Brexit, my view is if it is a bit broken, fix it, don't just bin it. I am not persuaded by any argument that PR would transform British life for the better, so why bother? Of course the smaller parties want it - they would, wouldn't they? The 'unbiased' wider arguments all seem to be far too nuanced for me, and once people start talking about systems such as single transferrable vote, and preference voting.....FFS! I want to cast one vote, tactically, to keep out the tories (next time). If I had to work out what sort of spread bet, weighting and ranking I would need to place across a field of candidates, or worse no specific candidate but instead a party identifier, I'd not bother.

And at least with FPTP I am 100% happy at least some of the time. Well, during the honeymoon period, at least.

*That reminds me of an anecdote about Sartre. He was in a Paris cafe once and ordered a coffee without cream. The waitress said 'we don't have any cream'. So Satre said 'in that case I will have it without sugar'. Bloody foringers!

My Italian friend delights in the fact we are now more of a political basket case and by-word for corruption than they are but after 50 years of living with their system is convinced that the only workable solution for the planet and the majority of us on it is benign dictatorships, as democracy creates too much short-termism. She's almost at the point she'd even prefer a monarchy to democracy!

 

[WATFORD zero]

My Italian friend delights in the fact we are now more of a political basket case and by-word for corruption than they are but after 50 years of living with their system is convinced that the only workable solution for the planet and the majority of us on it is benign dictatorships, as democracy creates too much short-termism. She's almost at the point she'd even prefer a monarchy to democracy!

She may have a point about democracy. Our current Government were voted in by under 30% of the electorate and it's worth remembering that nearly 50% are more stupid than the average person. Benign Dictatorships - the way ahead

 

[beorhthelm]

This is so true, Labour had the chance to possibly mitigate against the hard Brexit we eventually got, but put party politics ahead of what was possibly a better softer outcome and relished in joining with the ERG to defeat time and time again May’s sitting government. It looked great at the time in the HOC but all the time I felt this was playing into the hard right hands of the Conservative party. This may be simplistic and I do not hold the Labour Party responsible for the eventual outcome, but they did not help matters in my opinion.

to be fair Labour supported various alternative in the indicative vote saga. if the TIGers, Liberals or SNP had backed the customs union option, that would be the will of parliament and set out where we went.

 

[Baldseagull]

I don't have any problem with a coaltition. If the numbers of seats won means that no single party has a majority then a coaltion makes absolute sense. I really don't mind a coalition if that is how the cookie crumbles. It is how we get to a coalition that bothers me.

My beef is with PR. PR (apparently) guarantees coalitions. Why is that good?

Voters currently vote for one individual, usually because they represent the party they favour at the time. Nobody actually votes for a coalition. One may accept it as an outcome (albeit many don't and would prefer a second ballot), but to desire it? Why? To stop extremism? We all know the answer to that one. No it must be something to do with 'fairness'.

Of course we could radically change the system so that we no longer vote for one candidate. We could be allowed to vote for, say, up to five out of a possible fifteen on a ballot. That would allow us to pick and mix candidates from different parties, so that a coaltition of our desired flavour is created.

However with that, there is even less chance each voter would get what they want. If I want a parliament that is run by a coalition which is itself 60% labour and 40% green, and instead I get a coalition that is 80% labour (too laboury) 10% green and 10% libdem, then I am not getting what I voted for and (in the time-honoured tradition of those unsatisfied with our electoral system) would have the right to be outraged at the unfairness of it all. Every election.

Let's face it, in nations that have PR, their societies, voters and politicians are rather different from ours. Maybe they go to the ballot box in the certain knowledge that their preferred party will almost certainly not win, yet content that the more likely outcome, a coalition, will at least result in some of their heartfelt desires being met. That is, of course if the coalition was 'centre right' and you are right wing. What if the outcome was centre left? I suppose the answer one may give is that most people are in the centre so it hardly matters. A bit like coffee with or without sugar versus with or without milk*.

Somehow the idea of a phlegmatic electorate and a similar phlegmatic news media network in the UK seems a bit unlikely (albeit maybe I'm living in the past).

Perhaps the news media and the politicians would change if we had PR. Maybe. But right now any coalition we might have in the UK will be made up of the same mix of the dutiful backbencher type and the psychopathic gobshite, with the latter rising up to the leadership roles, whatever the system by which they obtain their seat, with the newmedia doing their usual thing.

All that said....perhaps we may start to consider changing the system....the problem of course is this has to be triggered by the government itself, and turkeys don't vote for Christmas.

But.... just as with Brexit, my view is if it is a bit broken, fix it, don't just bin it. I am not persuaded by any argument that PR would transform British life for the better, so why bother? Of course the smaller parties want it - they would, wouldn't they? The 'unbiased' wider arguments all seem to be far too nuanced for me, and once people start talking about systems such as single transferrable vote, and preference voting.....FFS! I want to cast one vote, tactically, to keep out the tories (next time). If I had to work out what sort of spread bet, weighting and ranking I would need to place across a field of candidates, or worse no specific candidate but instead a party identifier, I'd not bother.

And at least with FPTP I am 100% happy at least some of the time. Well, during the honeymoon period, at least.

*That reminds me of an anecdote about Sartre. He was in a Paris cafe once and ordered a coffee without cream. The waitress said 'we don't have any cream'. So Satre said 'in that case I will have it without sugar'. Bloody foringers!

I did find it strange that so many Lib Dem supporters got their knickers in a twist over forming a coalition with Tories, when PR that has been a Lib Dem policy for ever, and would presumably require concessions from the major parties to form a government almost always. But what we have now is Political parties that are coalitions in themselves, I quite liked the AV system that was proposed, meaning that I would be able to vote for the party I preferred, rather than just against the party I disliked most.

 

[Lenny Rider]

Ah but what are labours proposals, nothing probably to dissimilar…


Politics, a game for fools, voted for by fools…


We get the same shite in different wolves clothing.

Problem is now, when we were growing up all our politicians regardless of what rosette they wore, had either fought in the war or lived through it and knew a bit about life giving them all a certain gravitas.

Todays politicians are ‘career’ ones, very few have actual life experiences in the real world and as a result the workings of our parliament and democracy in general will be affected.

 

[Tim Over Whelmed]

All I'm hoping for is that Labour need the liberals to form a Govt and the Libs, this time, only do it if they agree to PR (which they won't)

 

[rippleman]

Agree re divisiveness….suspect a large majority are somewhere near the centre. Re the state of those in charge, when you pay an MP the salary of, for example, nothing more than a junior to middle manager in the City (even without taking bonuses into account), you’re never going to get the number of quality people needed IMO. Why would anyone want to put up with the hassle, scrutiny and likelihood of losing their job every 5 years for that ?

Or, to put it another way, pay an MP: 3.35 times the salary of a student nurse, or 3.8 times a street cleaner or 4.7 times a teaching assistant.

Where's the value for money?. Which of the four could you and your family do without?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Sorry Harry, just a quick one, it's not guaranteed.

The only time you would get a coalition is when there isn't a majority of the electorate wanting one particular party to govern them

Edited for precision and accuracy.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My Italian friend delights in the fact we are now more of a political basket case and by-word for corruption than they are but after 50 years of living with their system is convinced that the only workable solution for the planet and the majority of us on it is benign dictatorships, as democracy creates too much short-termism. She's almost at the point she'd even prefer a monarchy to democracy!

Indeed. In none of my rant did I mention such things as a test for fitness to stand for election and fitness to be allowed a vote. I did mention this in detail in another rant on another thread recently.

Bottom line, I am not comfortable that my considered vote can be cancelled out by the carelesly-strewn X from someone who thinks pharmacy is what farmers do, on behalf of a candidate with the twisted brain-wrong of a one-off man-mental.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I did find it strange that so many Lib Dem supporters got their knickers in a twist over forming a coalition with Tories, when PR that has been a Lib Dem policy for ever, and would presumably require concessions from the major parties to form a government almost always. But what we have now is Political parties that are coalitions in themselves, I quite liked the AV system that was proposed, meaning that I would be able to vote for the party I preferred, rather than just against the party I disliked most.

Libdems (and other minority) parties want PR because it would increase the chance of a hung parliament and a pop at forming a coalition. Self interest - that's all.

Yet, with an uncommon hung parliament under FPTP, when they get the chance to sniff the menu at the top table, more than half their supporters flounce because the party selected the 'wrong' partner with whom to form the coalition.

I suspect it isn't just Johnson who is either too stupid to understand the rules or too craven to stick by them.

Fairness, balance, concensus....my arse!

 

[dazzer6666]

Or, to put it another way, pay an MP: 3.35 times the salary of a student nurse, or 3.8 times a street cleaner or 4.7 times a teaching assistant.

Where's the value for money?. Which of the four could you and your family do without?

Yep. The fact those groups are seriously underpaid doesn’t change the issue though.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

My MP was parachuted into the constituency by the conservatives with no appreciation or understanding of local issues and no previous parliamentary experience. He won with a 20% majority and has done nothing noteworthy since but he will be 99.9% certain to win again.

My votes are pointless as <insert name of conservative candidate here> will win whether it be local or general election regardless of what they offer the community.

I'm no fan of either PR or FPTP but it would be nice to have a point in my life where my vote actually contributed to something meaningful.

 

[beorhthelm]

My MP was parachuted into the constituency by the conservatives with no appreciation or understanding of local issues and no previous parliamentary experience. He won with a 20% majority and has done nothing noteworthy since but he will be 99.9% certain to win again.

My votes are pointless as <insert name of conservative candidate here> will win whether it be local or general election regardless of what they offer the community.

I'm no fan of either PR or FPTP but it would be nice to have a point in my life where my vote actually contributed to something meaningful.

the problem here highlights an inflated expectation of our democracy, seems we only accept our vote is "counted" if our selection wins. same issue is pretty much ensured by PR (vote for a party). the sense of votes being counted across a region being weighted representation only goes as far as middle parties, there's inevitably a size of vote not represented. so is this really any better, or just good enough for a few more? your vote is not pointless, the act of voting is suppose to matter.

 

[Garry Nelson's Left Foot]

.

I'm no fan of either PR or FPTP but it would be nice to have a point in my life where my vote actually contributed to something meaningful.

https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/poll.php?pollid=14789&do=showresults

Oh.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

the problem here highlights an inflated expectation of our democracy, seems we only accept our vote is "counted" if our selection wins. same issue is pretty much ensured by PR (vote for a party). the sense of votes being counted across a region being weighted representation only goes as far as middle parties, there's inevitably a size of vote not represented. so is this really any better, or just good enough for a few more? your vote is not pointless, the act of voting is suppose to matter.

Nailed it. If you argue "Why should I vote? I have one voice in a constituency of 50,000 so my vote doesn't count", changing the system from FPTP to PR won't make a jot of difference.

On the other hand the question "Why do we vote when we are one small voice in a throng?" could be and probably has been the subject of a PhD thesis. If the answer is in any way "to feel part of the greater whole" then it could be argued that facilitating that feeling by whatever means is justified. This could mean making voters 'feel' more 'valued' by changing the sustem to PR. My view is this would be an ineffective solution to a bogus problem, more related to the wider problem of getting the electorate to cast a vote.

No, for now I'll stick. I may twist at another time, but I doubt it.

One other thing, I do hope that the narrative 'they are all as bad as each other' isn't creeping back into the conversation. The reason I started the thread was because, truly, they are not. We need to focus, and not allow the lickspittals to steal the narrative again. Johnson's shithousery should not be forgotten or forgiven. Suggesting that in our hearts we all house some darkness cannot be used to excuse Johnson.

A line has been crossed. On one side we have people of varying degrees of probity attempting to obtain the greater good while making some calculated attempts to personally benefit from their work, with some of them sometimes sailing close to the wind. On the other side we have people only in it for themselves, with some of them sufficiently emboldened to lie as their first choice of response, even enjoying the lies, laughing at the fools who trusted them with their vote, sniggering and doing the equivalent of the Ronaldo wink. That's Johnson, that is.

 

[zefarelly]

Right to suspend him, but will likely be found to be an innocent fancy dress get up, rather than a form of hero worship, I suspect and hope that is all it was.

Really?

You don't just nip into Tesco for a uniform like that!

It'd probably be easier to get hold of one of Lady Di's dresses for a fancy dress do!

 

[Theatre of Trees]

One thing everyone is ignoring with the debate about voting systems is the existence of a non-elective hereditary second chamber. I'd personally like to see that scrapped - it would enable the Commons to keep FPTP as I do believe the constituency vote is important but allow the Lords to become elected by PR with elections taking place exactly half way through a government's fixed term. I'd also split the list into the 4 constituent parts of the UK - so those in England just votes for seats in England and perhaps leave a certain percentage of seats to independent non-aligned candidates so it gives a voice to some single issue or local views that are more often than not swamped by the monolithic party system.

Pie in the sky perhaps and it would need a clear set of rules of who can or cannot stand where.

 

[beorhthelm]

One thing everyone is ignoring with the debate about voting systems is the existence of a non-elective hereditary second chamber. I'd personally like to see that scrapped - it would enable the Commons to keep FPTP as I do believe the constituency vote is important but allow the Lords to become elected by PR with elections taking place exactly half way through a government's fixed term. I'd also split the list into the 4 constituent parts of the UK - so those in England just votes for seats in England and perhaps leave a certain percentage of seats to independent non-aligned candidates so it gives a voice to some single issue or local views that are more often than not swamped by the monolithic party system.

Pie in the sky perhaps and it would need a clear set of rules of who can or cannot stand where.

its an entirely different matter, though worthwhile. there's benefits being unelected, the members are not leaned on politically and can vote genuinely with conscience in conflict with their party - as they regularly do. the problem then is just the make up, how they are appointed which is completly arbitary now. i'd say keep it appointed long term (say 20 years) with some ex commons, some regional/council chosen, industry allocations and a nominal few for government, in a transparent process. thats everyones real bug bear, how they are selected.

 

[Ooh it’s a corner]

As HWT says ‘they are NOT all as bad as each other’. I have never voted Tory and don’t believe I ever shall but there have usually been some talented Tory MPs. This time though Johnson kicked out most of those who didn’t agree with him or his approach and we are left with the most corrupt, inept, contemptible Government we have had in my lifetime(1957 onward). I was both amazed and disappointed that on 5 live this morning there was still a large number of people who DID want to move on now BJ had apologised. It’s a scandal that his party haven’t chucked him out themselves instantly. It’s truly appalling that this man is leading the UK and equally that more(MPs and the general population) seem alright with him continuing.

 

[Barnet Seagull]

I do vote and will continue to vote. I accept my one small voice. The reality is what it is.