Tories lose Chesham and Amersham

[Sid in the Sharknado]

I'm not a supporter of any particular party but the idea of reducing British politics to a two party state is dangerous and wrong - as a floating voter I'd be utterly opposed to any alliance between parties unless it was AFTER the vote and a collation government was needed - such as in 2010.

If I vote for say Peter Kyle in Hove and Portslade I want to know the vote is for him and not the Green Party and Lib Dems hiding under his skirt tails.

The policies of the Green Party, Lib Dems and Labour do differ - so they should have the guts to stand by them rather the create come pathetic "We hate the Tories" alliance.

If a GE was held tomorrow I'd vote Peter Kyle - if Labour did the alliance deal I'd purposely vote for the Tory candidate.

The policies of MPs within each party differ as well, a party is just an instrument that more-or-less like minded people use to get elected/stop people they disagree with getting elected.

I will never understand why so many people on "the left" [Edit: to be clear, not you specifically] feel that ideological purity is more important than actually getting a government they largely agree with into power.

 

[Lyndhurst 14]

The USA is unusual in having only two parties. Many countries have PR and have coalition governments all the time. Labour have far more in common with the Greens than they do with the LibDems.
To get PR, we need to vote tactically to get this vast majority down first. I know we had a vote back in 2013(?) but that was for Alternative Votes as opposed to PR.

A lot of Americans are unhappy with the two party system and would like to see the rise of a viable 3rd party alternative. There have been candidates in the past who have run fairly good campaigns as Independents, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader to name two, but have never gathered a real head of steam. They see a third party like the Lib Dems in the UK as a way of reigning in the excesses of extreme left and right policies, but I don't think they realise that if the UK had PR instead of FPTP that third party would be even more effective in that role.

 

[Baker lite]

Excellent news for democracy. This Tory cabinet have been to complacent for to long. I suspect a lot of it has to do with HS2, more alarming is the fact that over 600 hundred people in Amersham and Chesham voted for the anti Semitic Labour Party.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

As with Kallimantan's (sp) earlier post, I disagree with pretty much all of this:
-- PR will be a while off here and, again, secession is a more likely first constitutional change
-- Labour show little sign of backing PR or forming alliances
-- even if Labour do show interest in PR, there's every chance that they'll ditch it like Blair did back in 1997
-- the electorate won't like formal alliances, and will vote accordingly
-- the SNP won't be remotely interested in PR, nor will Plaid Cymru or any of the NI parties
-- if PR happens, the Tories will hold together and find a way to ensure they get as much political power as possible -- it's what they've done for the past 300+ years, and they're very good at it.

In short, you're too optimistic about the prospects for PR, and too optimistic about what would happen if PR emerges

This.

The first question in politics is 'what is in it for my interest'?

The liberals and greens support PR because they think they will benefit. Labour (mostly) and tories (certainly) are against it because they think it will disfavour them.

People whose favoured party would benefit from PR favour PR 'because it is fairer'. You couldn't make this stuff up. For losers, systems only become 'fairer' is the other lot are prevented from winning.

It is said that roughly a third of the electorate favour labour, a third tory and a third liberal (albeit I suspect the latter is an over estimate now). In a 'fair' system nobody has a majority and all governments become coalitions of convenience. Why is that 'fairer' than FPTP? It is surely better to have a third of the electorate happy and two thirds unhappy than have two thirds (it will never be more) a bit disgruntled and one third unhappy. I support labour and would not wish to see them in perpetaul coalition with the soppy liberals or demented greens. Stable, certainly but stability means stagnation.

Under our present system one party gets all the power (most of the time) but if they **** up they are out, so everyone has an incentive to get their finger out. Only complacency and stagnation (Blair, Major) lead to a change in government. It is a dynamic equilibrium. I'd rather not risk it all for an adventure with some alien foreign system, especially in the name of 'fairness'.

 

[jimhigham]

I'm not a supporter of any particular party but the idea of reducing British politics to a two party state is dangerous and wrong - as a floating voter I'd be utterly opposed to any alliance between parties unless it was AFTER the vote and a coalition government was needed - such as in 2010.

If I vote for say Peter Kyle in Hove and Portslade I want to know the vote is for him and not the Green Party and Lib Dems hiding under his skirt tails.

The policies of the Green Party, Lib Dems and Labour do differ - so they should have the guts to stand by them rather the create come pathetic "We hate the Tories" alliance.

If a GE was held tomorrow I'd vote Peter Kyle - if Labour did the alliance deal I'd purposely vote for the Tory candidate.

Politics is all about opinions and a few years ago I’d have largely agreed with yours. In an ideal world the situation you describe would hold sway but the political landscape has shifted massively in the past few years. The Conservatives have more or less eaten UKIP and left themselves effectively the only right wing party facing off against three left/centrist parties splitting each other’s vote.

The remaining parties can stand on principle and shut themselves out of power for a generation or accept the reality of the situation they are faced with and act accordingly.

For what it’s worth, I’d still lay money on nothing being done.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

A lot of Americans are unhappy with the two party system and would like to see the rise of a viable 3rd party alternative. There have been candidates in the past who have run fairly good campaigns as Independents, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader to name two, but have never gathered a real head of steam. They see a third party like the Lib Dems in the UK as a way of reigning in the excesses of extreme left and right policies, but I don't think they realise that if the UK had PR instead of FPTP that third party would be even more effective in that role.

Would that be a lot of democrats when the republicans are in power, and a lot of republicans when the democrats are in power?

It is all very well hankering for a middle way, but unless people are prepared to form a new party and the electorate is perpared to vote for it, it is just a pipe dream.

And just because people are unhappy doesn't mean they are right.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

It's no big deal. Liberals have a moment of glory every now and then and then peter out.

Same old, same old.

Ed, the duck, has no chance of making numbers up; in my opinion, at least Swinson had 2 appealing points.

 

[RexCathedra]

A lot of Americans are unhappy with the two party system and would like to see the rise of a viable 3rd party alternative. There have been candidates in the past who have run fairly good campaigns as Independents, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader to name two, but have never gathered a real head of steam.[/q.

In the US, there may be only two labels. But there really are more than two parties. Here you form the coalitions (historically that's what the two major parties are... ), then fight the elections, and govern if you win. Look at the diversity in the Senate Democratic caucus, with Warren and Sanders sitting with Manchin and Tester. The House, even more so.

This instead of the other model -- fight the election, form the coalition, then govern, if you win.

(Though the relatively monolithic Republican party of today skips that first, coalition-forming step).

 

[Eeyore]

Excellent news for democracy. This Tory cabinet have been to complacent for to long. I suspect a lot of it has to do with HS2, more alarming is the fact that over 600 hundred people in Amersham and Chesham voted for the anti Semitic Labour Party.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You told me to give it a rest...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This.

The first question in politics is 'what is in it for my interest'?

The liberals and greens support PR because they think they will benefit. Labour (mostly) and tories (certainly) are against it because they think it will disfavour them.

People whose favoured party would benefit from PR favour PR 'because it is fairer'. You couldn't make this stuff up. For losers, systems only become 'fairer' is the other lot are prevented from winning.

It is said that roughly a third of the electorate favour labour, a third tory and a third liberal (albeit I suspect the latter is an over estimate now). In a 'fair' system nobody has a majority and all governments become coalitions of convenience. Why is that 'fairer' than FPTP? It is surely better to have a third of the electorate happy and two thirds unhappy than have two thirds (it will never be more) a bit disgruntled and one third unhappy. I support labour and would not wish to see them in perpetaul coalition with the soppy liberals or demented greens. Stable, certainly but stability means stagnation.

Under our present system one party gets all the power (most of the time) but if they **** up they are out, so everyone has an incentive to get their finger out. Only complacency and stagnation (Blair, Major) lead to a change in government. It is a dynamic equilibrium. I'd rather not risk it all for an adventure with some alien foreign system, especially in the name of 'fairness'.

I pointed this out earlier in the thread, but only two countries in Europe have FPTP. Are you saying every other country is stagnating because they have PR?
Yes, there are coalitions, but it also means cooperation and avoids excesses.

 

[zefarelly]

You told me to give it a rest...

Quite, Cupid Stunt springs to mind.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I pointed this out earlier in the thread, but only two countries in Europe have FPTP. Are you saying every other country is stagnating because they have PR?
Yes, there are coalitions, but it also means cooperation and avoids excesses.

Avoids excesses? From time to time all nations bring in laws that some regard as excesses. Israel has a coalition most of the time and it is nothing but excesses. Only five (I think it is) countries in Europe have English as their principal language. That doesn't mean it is foolhardy to use English as the principal language. Most countries of Europe are in the EU, and yet people in the UK voted to leave it. None of this is about what is right and wrong, merely about what we perceive to be best for us. There is no clamour in the UK to change the electoral system, just a lot of hot air from a noisy minority. We are what we are, and I maintain that those in favour of systemic change are simply after getting a government that suits them better. When I was a kid we had hippies who wanted to change the system so that they could do more of what they wanted (smoke dope and collect the dole). The rest of the nation raised one eyebrow. Man.

Until a majority feel the system is working against them nothing will change.

Anyway, I don't really need to comment because the system won't change and that's all there is to it. Even if everything I have said and think is wrong we will still bimble on with FPTP.

 

[Sid in the Sharknado]

This.

The first question in politics is 'what is in it for my interest'?

The liberals and greens support PR because they think they will benefit. Labour (mostly) and tories (certainly) are against it because they think it will disfavour them.

People whose favoured party would benefit from PR favour PR 'because it is fairer'. You couldn't make this stuff up. For losers, systems only become 'fairer' is the other lot are prevented from winning.

It is said that roughly a third of the electorate favour labour, a third tory and a third liberal (albeit I suspect the latter is an over estimate now). In a 'fair' system nobody has a majority and all governments become coalitions of convenience. Why is that 'fairer' than FPTP? It is surely better to have a third of the electorate happy and two thirds unhappy than have two thirds (it will never be more) a bit disgruntled and one third unhappy. I support labour and would not wish to see them in perpetaul coalition with the soppy liberals or demented greens. Stable, certainly but stability means stagnation.

Under our present system one party gets all the power (most of the time) but if they **** up they are out, so everyone has an incentive to get their finger out. Only complacency and stagnation (Blair, Major) lead to a change in government. It is a dynamic equilibrium. I'd rather not risk it all for an adventure with some alien foreign system, especially in the name of 'fairness'.

I don't know if anybody else is bored with me banging on about electoral reform whenever this has come up over the last year or so, but I'm certainly bored with writing about it.

On that basis, I'm going to leave a space below where people can imagine I've made an overwritten and ultimately unconvincing argument in favour of a better system. That way nobody has to get bored reading it and I don't have to waste time writing it. Actually, I'll fill the space with a link to Hit the North by The Fall, because

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Avoids excesses? From time to time all nations bring in laws that some regard as excesses. Israel has a coalition most of the time and it is nothing but excesses. Only five (I think it is) countries in Europe have English as their principal language. That doesn't mean it is foolhardy to use English as the principal language. Most countries of Europe are in the EU, and yet people in the UK voted to leave it. None of this is about what is right and wrong, merely about what we perceive to be best for us. There is no clamour in the UK to change the electoral system, just a lot of hot air from a noisy minority. We are what we are, and I maintain that those in favour of systemic change are simply after getting a government that suits them better. When I was a kid we had hippies who wanted to change the system so that they could do more of what they wanted (smoke dope and collect the dole). The rest of the nation raised one eyebrow. Man.

Until a majority feel the system is working against them nothing will change.

Anyway, I don't really need to comment because the system won't change and that's all there is to it. Even if everything I have said and think is wrong we will still bimble on with FPTP.

There are many like me who feel politically homeless. We came close with the Alternative Vote referendum. People see the sleaze and corruption taking place with a party who has a large majority, and are getting fed up with it.
Just today a Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault on a 15 yr old boy and will stand trial. Whoever selected him as a Tory candidate should be sacked.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

As with Kallimantan's (sp) earlier post, I disagree with pretty much all of this:
-- PR will be a while off here and, again, secession is a more likely first constitutional change
-- Labour show little sign of backing PR or forming alliances
-- even if Labour do show interest in PR, there's every chance that they'll ditch it like Blair did back in 1997
-- the electorate won't like formal alliances, and will vote accordingly
-- the SNP won't be remotely interested in PR, nor will Plaid Cymru or any of the NI parties
-- if PR happens, the Tories will hold together and find a way to ensure they get as much political power as possible -- it's what they've done for the past 300+ years, and they're very good at it.

In short, you're too optimistic about the prospects for PR, and too optimistic about what would happen if PR emerges

Oh, if that's what you were disagreeing with me about earlier, then I think I share your views on the likelihood of it happening. I was more positing that it is what HAS to happen to break the Tories inherent electoral strength, and perhaps also that now is the best chance for Labour to agree to it in generations, with Scotland looking lost for a long time, the redistribution of seats favouring the Tories, and the EU in the rear view mirror. I don't know how Labour think they can win a general any time soon, without that coalition and electoral reform. (the SNP would agree if offered a binding indy ref, they would have to or would lose all credibility, and anyway, it's their end goal of being in the UK parliament).

But Labour are stubborn. They are a bit like Everton to the Tories Liverpool, they believe they are equals but always fall short. They couldn't agree to stand down in 100 seats. And even if they did, yep, no guarantee they would win the election and take power. But I think they would be heavily favoured.

 

[Chicken Run]

There are many like me who feel politically homeless. We came close with the Alternative Vote referendum. People see the sleaze and corruption taking place with a party who has a large majority, and are getting fed up with it.
Just today a Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault on a 15 yr old boy and will stand trial. Whoever selected him as a Tory candidate should be sacked.

I guess you will only feel truly at home when your politics is representative in the area that you live.

I lived for the last 51 years in an area that rarely sees my politics represented yet don’t consider myself politically homeless [emoji23][emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Lever]

This result is a breath of fresh air for politics. The Tories purged the Party of its most independent minded MPs in 2019 and are now left with career politicians who are obliged to support a lying, narcissistic leadership with a breathtaking sense of entitlement.... and they seem to do it with relish.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Just today a Conservative MP has been charged with sexual assault on a 15 yr old boy and will stand trial. Whoever selected him as a Tory candidate should be sacked.

I agree. Whoever thought it was a good idea to give Stuart Hall a microphone or Rolf Harris a paintbrush should be hung, drawn and quartered.

 

[McTavish]

, at least Swinson had 2 appealing points.

Don't you ever get bored of your own misogyny?

 

[Machiavelli]

Oh, if that's what you were disagreeing with me about earlier, then I think I share your views on the likelihood of it happening. I was more positing that it is what HAS to happen to break the Tories inherent electoral strength, and perhaps also that now is the best chance for Labour to agree to it in generations, with Scotland looking lost for a long time, the redistribution of seats favouring the Tories, and the EU in the rear view mirror. I don't know how Labour think they can win a general any time soon, without that coalition and electoral reform. (the SNP would agree if offered a binding indy ref, they would have to or would lose all credibility, and anyway, it's their end goal of being in the UK parliament).

But Labour are stubborn. They are a bit like Everton to the Tories Liverpool, they believe they are equals but always fall short. They couldn't agree to stand down in 100 seats. And even if they did, yep, no guarantee they would win the election and take power. But I think they would be heavily favoured.

See the first point I made.