[Politics] Tory meltdown finally arrived [was: incoming]...

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I think there's something in what @chickens says (Sun and Mail readers tend to be less loyal to the editorial party line than other papers). But the media (or press, which is what I'm talking about) really isn't 'primarily in the business of selling what people want to read'. If they did, why is it so many moguls run the press at a loss, and that they all seem to have a remarkably consistent viewpoint on economics?

I'd probably go further and say most of these tabloids are now little more than political pamphlets agitating for the Conservative Party. They work hand in glove with think tanks, to try and set the political weather and undermine treasured national institutions like certain charities, the NHS and BBC.

I don't deny that at some point, the prevailing aim of the newspaper was to write content that their readership would want to read, ultimately to make money as a newspaper. But that changed, sometime in the last decade I think. Now the prevailing aim is to support right wing policies to help ensure that the wider financial interests of a few offshore billionaires are looked after. Whether the paper makes money or not is a secondary concern. Any money the moguls lose in dwindling sales is dwarfed by being able to keep their interests and money offshore, hidden and away from being taxed.

 

[clapham_gull]

 

[Audax]

How about the Alternative Vote system we had a referendum on? Would still allow people to vote for the candidate they most wanted, rather than against the one they most despised, but allow that vote to pass to another if their most preferred candidate was not popular enough with others to be in the race. It seems close to ideal to me.

It's a decent system. More democratic than FPTP, and IMO would be a necessary stepping stone towards PR. Flipping from FPTP to full PR in one go isn't a good idea IMO.

I really like the Aussie system. AV for the lower house (which determines the government). It typically generates majority governments, but does leave a door open for strong independents and minor parties to grab seats. And then the upper house is PR, with staggered terms (in normal GEs only half the house is up for vote). It still generates strong two-party numbers of seats, but you generally get enough independents and minor parties to prevent a full majority. And the upper house has teeth - it can (and has historically) shoot down bad legislation from the lower house. Typically, however, bad legislation doesn't make it to the upper house because the governing party knows they need support from minor parties / independents to get it through.

Still have the problem, though, of it realistically being a 2-party system when it comes to forming government. It's either the Liberal/National Coalition (Coalition that's been in place so long it's effectively a single party) or the Australian Labor Party. A full PR system you'd probably see the Lib and Nat parties separate while still being closely allied.

There is an infinity of mischief to be had.

He would double down on persecuting diversity, for starters.

No, I don't want ****s like that anywhere near parliament, let alone the cabinet.

They laughed at Hitler......

You're assuming a Farage / Conservative tie-up is/was an inevitability. Not convinced that's correct.

I'm much more concerned by the threat of entryism into one of those parties dragging them to the right or left while they're in power than I am with a relatively extreme party forming part of a coalition under a PR system. It's much easier in the latter scenario for the rest of the coalition to say "you know what mate, we've had enough of this" than it is for the centrists in either Labour or the Conservatives to deal with a group dragging their party to either extreme.

Agree with you on this. It happened with Corbyn (thankfully not terminally) in Labour, and it's happened with the Conservatives - in the latter case in particular at the constituency level, where candidate selection currently appears to favour much further right today than it did historically, which resulted in the 2019 GE seeing a lot of what probably would have been Ukip candidates back in 2010 being elected as Conservatives. They aren't true Conservatives, they're candidates with a very narrow, specific political view that ordinarily would not have seen anywhere near as many of them get elected.

It is how it works in Israel.

Israel is not a like-for-like comparison. There are very specific geo-political forces at play in Israel that heavily distort things in a way we would not see in the UK. It's an extreme example, and one that's not likely to be repeated. Far more relevant examples are available. And yes, in many of those examples you do see a small number of quacks and marginal viewpoint candidates get in. But the point is, those small numbers are almost always (examples like Israel being the exception) heavily outweighed by the moderates, especially as there is more room for diversification of moderate parties that makes it easier for voters to choose a party that represents *them* instead of having to compromise because the party that most closely matches them is actually 2 or 3 parties loosely organised under a single name that could significantly change direction at a moments notice due to a leadership change (such as Corbyn's Labour vs Starmer's Labour).

Changing the system because we don't like the outcome is not the right way.

Not changing the system because we don't like one extreme potential outcome is also not the right way.

"PR" as a voting system is a catch-all that covers a multitude of possible solutions. Some of which are actually quite good at preventing your fears from happening. For example, Australia's PR system for the Senate requires that certain quota thresholds are reached before a candidate can be elected. What typically happens is the loonies just don't reach the threshold and are eliminated before they get a seat.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Johnson's main political instinct is Johnson first and then see what follows. But, insofar as he does have political beliefs, he's more on the liberal wing of the party. He wanted an amnesty for illegal immigrants when he was Mayor of London and he was very pro-EU before there was a political advantage in being anti. I think he'd be more One Nation than ERG head banger.

Johnson is not a liberal, he speaks like he is, but he most certainly is not by his actions.

 

[Gwylan]

Johnson is not a liberal, he speaks like he is, but he most certainly is not by his actions.

Someone who talked of the benefits of immigration and wants amnesty for illegal immigrants is not on the right of the party. But you're right that he'll disavow any form of liberalism, the only political philosophy that he follows is Johnstonism

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

It's a decent system. More democratic than FPTP, and IMO would be a necessary stepping stone towards PR. Flipping from FPTP to full PR in one go isn't a good idea IMO.

I really like the Aussie system. AV for the lower house (which determines the government). It typically generates majority governments, but does leave a door open for strong independents and minor parties to grab seats. And then the upper house is PR, with staggered terms (in normal GEs only half the house is up for vote). It still generates strong two-party numbers of seats, but you generally get enough independents and minor parties to prevent a full majority. And the upper house has teeth - it can (and has historically) shoot down bad legislation from the lower house. Typically, however, bad legislation doesn't make it to the upper house because the governing party knows they need support from minor parties / independents to get it through.

Still have the problem, though, of it realistically being a 2-party system when it comes to forming government. It's either the Liberal/National Coalition (Coalition that's been in place so long it's effectively a single party) or the Australian Labor Party. A full PR system you'd probably see the Lib and Nat parties separate while still being closely allied.



You're assuming a Farage / Conservative tie-up is/was an inevitability. Not convinced that's correct.



Agree with you on this. It happened with Corbyn (thankfully not terminally) in Labour, and it's happened with the Conservatives - in the latter case in particular at the constituency level, where candidate selection currently appears to favour much further right today than it did historically, which resulted in the 2019 GE seeing a lot of what probably would have been Ukip candidates back in 2010 being elected as Conservatives. They aren't true Conservatives, they're candidates with a very narrow, specific political view that ordinarily would not have seen anywhere near as many of them get elected.



Israel is not a like-for-like comparison. There are very specific geo-political forces at play in Israel that heavily distort things in a way we would not see in the UK. It's an extreme example, and one that's not likely to be repeated. Far more relevant examples are available. And yes, in many of those examples you do see a small number of quacks and marginal viewpoint candidates get in. But the point is, those small numbers are almost always (examples like Israel being the exception) heavily outweighed by the moderates, especially as there is more room for diversification of moderate parties that makes it easier for voters to choose a party that represents *them* instead of having to compromise because the party that most closely matches them is actually 2 or 3 parties loosely organised under a single name that could significantly change direction at a moments notice due to a leadership change (such as Corbyn's Labour vs Starmer's Labour).



Not changing the system because we don't like one extreme potential outcome is also not the right way.

"PR" as a voting system is a catch-all that covers a multitude of possible solutions. Some of which are actually quite good at preventing your fears from happening. For example, Australia's PR system for the Senate requires that certain quota thresholds are reached before a candidate can be elected. What typically happens is the loonies just don't reach the threshold and are eliminated before they get a seat.

I know you touch on it a couple of times in this post, but how do you find STV works in the senate elections in Australia?

In principle it seems to me to address most of my objections to both FPTP and a straight PR system (i.e. somewhat proportional, more votes influence the outcome, votes still made for individual candidates rather than a party as a whole), but I'd be interested in hearing if you have any particular objections to it in practice.

Edit: I'm aware that I bang on about STV a lot on here. I'm sort of relying on most people finding the topic so boring that they forget and/or don't notice.

 

[beorhthelm]

Who are you counting as 'right'? Tories only managed 36.9% of those that voted (66%). The other parties would have to be doing some heavy lifting to get beyond the half-way point.

Tories, UKIP, Unionist added up to 50.6%.

 

[BLOCK F]

I'd probably go further and say most of these tabloids are now little more than political pamphlets agitating for the Conservative Party. They work hand in glove with think tanks, to try and set the political weather and undermine treasured national institutions like certain charities, the NHS and BBC.

I don't deny that at some point, the prevailing aim of the newspaper was to write content that their readership would want to read, ultimately to make money as a newspaper. But that changed, sometime in the last decade I think. Now the prevailing aim is to support right wing policies to help ensure that the wider financial interests of a few offshore billionaires are looked after. Whether the paper makes money or not is a secondary concern. Any money the moguls lose in dwindling sales is dwarfed by being able to keep their interests and money offshore, hidden and away from being taxed.

Well, they don’t seem to be doing a very effective job for the Conservatives at the moment do they!
By the way, do you really think the NHS can continue as it is? Serious and honest politicians on both sides of the spectrum must see that it is in need of more than a ‘tweak here and there!’

 

[The Clamp]

Johnson is not a liberal, he speaks like he is, but he most certainly is not by his actions.

Liberal for himself. Very much not for the lower classes. The masses. Anyone who didn’t tickle his balls at Eton must be disciplined and work hard to fill his coffers.

Now what are you doing on here? Back to the coal-face with you. Subhuman scum.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It's a decent system. More democratic than FPTP, and IMO would be a necessary stepping stone towards PR. Flipping from FPTP to full PR in one go isn't a good idea IMO.

I really like the Aussie system. AV for the lower house (which determines the government). It typically generates majority governments, but does leave a door open for strong independents and minor parties to grab seats. And then the upper house is PR, with staggered terms (in normal GEs only half the house is up for vote). It still generates strong two-party numbers of seats, but you generally get enough independents and minor parties to prevent a full majority. And the upper house has teeth - it can (and has historically) shoot down bad legislation from the lower house. Typically, however, bad legislation doesn't make it to the upper house because the governing party knows they need support from minor parties / independents to get it through.

Still have the problem, though, of it realistically being a 2-party system when it comes to forming government. It's either the Liberal/National Coalition (Coalition that's been in place so long it's effectively a single party) or the Australian Labor Party. A full PR system you'd probably see the Lib and Nat parties separate while still being closely allied.



You're assuming a Farage / Conservative tie-up is/was an inevitability. Not convinced that's correct.



Agree with you on this. It happened with Corbyn (thankfully not terminally) in Labour, and it's happened with the Conservatives - in the latter case in particular at the constituency level, where candidate selection currently appears to favour much further right today than it did historically, which resulted in the 2019 GE seeing a lot of what probably would have been Ukip candidates back in 2010 being elected as Conservatives. They aren't true Conservatives, they're candidates with a very narrow, specific political view that ordinarily would not have seen anywhere near as many of them get elected.



Israel is not a like-for-like comparison. There are very specific geo-political forces at play in Israel that heavily distort things in a way we would not see in the UK. It's an extreme example, and one that's not likely to be repeated. Far more relevant examples are available. And yes, in many of those examples you do see a small number of quacks and marginal viewpoint candidates get in. But the point is, those small numbers are almost always (examples like Israel being the exception) heavily outweighed by the moderates, especially as there is more room for diversification of moderate parties that makes it easier for voters to choose a party that represents *them* instead of having to compromise because the party that most closely matches them is actually 2 or 3 parties loosely organised under a single name that could significantly change direction at a moments notice due to a leadership change (such as Corbyn's Labour vs Starmer's Labour).



Not changing the system because we don't like one extreme potential outcome is also not the right way.

"PR" as a voting system is a catch-all that covers a multitude of possible solutions. Some of which are actually quite good at preventing your fears from happening. For example, Australia's PR system for the Senate requires that certain quota thresholds are reached before a candidate can be elected. What typically happens is the loonies just don't reach the threshold and are eliminated before they get a seat.

I don't mind that.

I appreciate that I am repeating myself here, but I am not aware that either labour or conservative are remotely interested in changing the system, whereas those parties who think their representation would increase are all in favour. The liberals have been on about it for years. The temptation to comment that they would be, wouldn't they, is overwhelming.

Perhaps, if the tories suffer a large defeat in the next general election they will get behind electoral reform. Which illustrates the problem - in the UK - the only parties with an appetite for electoral reform are those that think they would benefit by it and who are, by definition, not in the position of power necessary to do anything about it.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

Well, they don’t seem to be doing a very effective job for the Conservatives at the moment do they!

No. Without their cheerleaders at GB News, the Mail and The Institute for policy studies (and their many sister organisations) things would be much, much worse for the Conservatives

By the way, do you really think the NHS can continue as it is? Serious and honest politicians on both sides of the spectrum must see that it is in need of more than a ‘tweak here and there!’

You're right. It needs much more than a tweak. It needs to be funded in line with inflation. Not RPI or CPI but health inflation, which is running at about 7% due to our aging population / drug inflation etc. This funding needs to be backdated and in particular, NHS staff need a proper payrise which reflects what they did for us during the pandemic. Keeping them is a whole lot easier than recruiting and training replacements.

This can only be paid for by significantly higher taxation, primarily on the well off, but realistically in part on all of us. But it's worth it. Because the point you make is right, what is currently happening is not sustainable and we're hurtling towards an American model. This is way less efficient than what we have now. We would be paying a lot more in health insurance fees than we will in extra taxes go get our NHS back where it needs to be.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

I don't mind that.

I appreciate that I am repeating myself here, but I am not aware that either labour or conservative are remotely interested in changing the system, whereas those parties who think their representation would increase are all in favour. The liberals have been on about it for years. The temptation to comment that they would be, wouldn't they, is overwhelming.

Perhaps, if the tories suffer a large defeat in the next general election they will get behind electoral reform. Which illustrates the problem - in the UK - the only parties with an appetite for electoral reform are those that think they would benefit by it and who are, by definition, not in the position of power necessary to do anything about it.

That's why we need PR

 

[Audax]

Not a newspaper but an election leaflet where the words 'The Conservatives say' has been omitted. I could find dozens of similar misleading items and articles.

Had a Conservative leaflet for Mims Davies through the door a few days ago. Vast majority of it was green in colour. To be fair, it did clearly identify itself as being party political campaign leaflet for the Conservatives, but damn they were doing everything they could to not make it immediately obvious. If you're reduced to hiding your official brand colours etc on your leaflets, that should be telling you something - and it's not a positive something.

 

[BBassic]

I never really "got" Partridge - I was an edgy goth teenager when it was on telly. But that might have just convinced me to give it a go.

I'm certainly stealing "sordid little grief hole" for when I go round my mates flat.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I know you touch on it a couple of times in this post, but how do you find STV works in the senate elections in Australia?

In principle it seems to me to address most of my objections to both FPTP and a straight PR system (i.e. somewhat proportional, more votes influence the outcome, votes still made for individual candidates rather than a party as a whole), but I'd be interested in hearing if you have any particular objections to it in practice.

Edit: I'm aware that I bang on about STV a lot on here. I'm sort of relying on most people finding the topic so boring that they forget and/or don't notice.

I looked it up but I honestly can't remember how it works. Or the other variants.

Years ago I was one of a team of 5 that wrote a text book. It didn't sell all that well in America. We wanted to fix this so the publisher did some market research to find out how we might change the book to increase sales in America. Lots of US academics and students were consulted at great cost.

We acted on the recommendations. Sales did not improve.

The survey was run again. I got the publisher to add a question. "If we made all the changes you would like made, would you buy the book or recommend it to your students?" The answer was a resounding no. Why? Because the universities had been using another established text book for years, and had based their training and assessment around it. The effort of changing, even if the outcome were an improvement, was preclusive.

I would be interested to know what the electorate, all of it, would say if offered the option to vote (in a referendum, let's say) to change the electoral system to one that people discuss, such as STV. I'm sure that liberal supporters and greens would vote 'leave' (the old system). Let's see roughly how many votes that might be, based on the last general election (numbers in millions):

Mmmmmm..........unless the 23 million who voted tory and labour in 2019 could be persuaded to change the system (which would mean changing the system so the outcome suited them more), the roughly 5 million who voted elsewhere would be heavily outnumbered. As indeed they always are.

 

[Bodian]

The effort of changing, even if the outcome were an improvement, was preclusive.

Yet another word I've had to look up in one of your posts! Although, I was able to have a pretty good guess at what it meant - just never heard/seen it before.

I have a planning application / footpath issue I am dealing with at the moment, and this word will fit perfectly within my report!!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That's why we need PR

You do appreciate my point, I assume. How does one impose a change in the voting system?

My ex wife always used to bang on about 'they'. Why don't they do something about child poverty, famine in Africa, the climate, etc.

Thing is. There is no 'they'. Just we.

 

[BLOCK F]

No. Without their cheerleaders at GB News, the Mail and The Institute for policy studies (and their many sister organisations) things would be much, much worse for the Conservatives


You're right. It needs much more than a tweak. It needs to be funded in line with inflation. Not RPI or CPI but health inflation, which is running at about 7% due to our aging population / drug inflation etc. This funding needs to be backdated and in particular, NHS staff need a proper payrise which reflects what they did for us during the pandemic. Keeping them is a whole lot easier than recruiting and training replacements.

This can only be paid for by significantly higher taxation, primarily on the well off, but realistically in part on all of us. But it's worth it. Because the point you make is right, what is currently happening is not sustainable and we're hurtling towards an American model. This is way less efficient than what we have now. We would be paying a lot more in health insurance fees than we will in extra taxes go get our NHS back where it needs to be.

Leaving your comments re the NHS aside, because it is a vast topic on its own, I am not convinced that GB News, the Mail etc. have a huge influence on how people vote, but as Beorhthelm, I think it was said, they may reinforce the views those readers or listeners may already have. Rather like those who read the Guardian or the Mirror. Would you be influenced by GB News or the Mail?

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I looked it up but I honestly can't remember how it works. Or the other variants.

Years ago I was one of a team of 5 that wrote a text book. It didn't sell all that well in America. We wanted to fix this so the publisher did some market research to find out how we might change the book to increase sales in America. Lots of US academics and students were consulted at great cost.

We acted on the recommendations. Sales did not improve.

The survey was run again. I got the publisher to add a question. "If we made all the changes you would like made, would you buy the book or recommend it to your students?" The answer was a resounding no. Why? Because the universities had been using another established text book for years, and had based their training and assessment around it. The effort of changing, even if the outcome were an improvement, was preclusive.

I would be interested to know what the electorate, all of it, would say if offered the option to vote (in a referendum, let's say) to change the electoral system to one that people discuss, such as STV. I'm sure that liberal supporters and greens would vote 'leave' (the old system). Let's see roughly how many votes that might be, based on the last general election (numbers in millions):

View attachment 176536

Mmmmmm..........unless the 23 million who voted tory and labour in 2019 could be persuaded to change the system (which would mean changing the system so the outcome suited them more), the roughly 5 million who voted elsewhere would be heavily outnumbered. As indeed they always are.

I was envisaging some sort of armed coup. It's amazing how persuasive the threat of summary execution can be.

Seriously though, just change it through Parliament like everything else. Hypothetically, at some point a party in government, probably Labour since they are as a party as a whole at least open to the idea of reform at the moment, comes out of an election needing support from the Lib Dems and/or Greens. Their price is some sort of electoral reform, they have some negotiation, it gets agreed.

Nobody was asked to vote when we got lumbered with FPTP in the first place, I don't see any reason why we need a vote to change it.

 

[ROSM]

Rishi was a countryside alliance supporter which is very close to a ....

You fill in the rest