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

[Insel affe]

Are we really surprised the result would be anything other than a resounding vote of confidence for Boris, we should shut up and move on, forget about the lies and parties during “lockdown” let him now buckle down and deal with real issues like….
The fall out from Brexit and everything that brings, oh hang on, he had a hand in that too, oh wait, wait a minute…

Zelenskyy, can I pop over for a photo shoot….


Utter, Utter TW@T.



Shame the friggin labour leader is a wet cabbage.

Where is the passion, British politics is broke.

Bingo

Boris is so bloody sad and predictable

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-61719962

 

[Stato]

[tweet]1534117083327385602[/tweet]

If Marks and Gran took the pilot for 'The New Statesman' to a broadcaster these days, they would ask where the satire was. I could just hear Alan B'Stard shouting about how sick he was of whining voters going on about their dead relatives.

There seems little doubt that this bloke absolutely knows what people's issue is with the parties. What he doesn't seem to understand is that every time one of them says 'ambushed with a cake', 'the country wants us to move on', 'everyone's had a pint' or any of the other fingers in the ears, please just make it go away statements intended to shut up those still disgusted by their duplicity, arrogance and sense of entitlement, all people hear is a very clear 'SHUT UP! WE ARE YOUR MASTERS AND WE DO NOT HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES THAT WE MADE FOR YOU SCUM!'

They are incapable of understanding that the people who turned to them in the North of England did so partly because of Brexit, but partly because it appeared to them that those in charge of the Labour Party had no interest in any of their problems, but were only interested in telling them what they should be thinking. Frustrating and annoying, but they should have been joining and taking the party back, as it turns out that the tories have even more disdain for them. Of course anybody who had paid a bit of attention to UK politics over the last half a century could have told them that working class people turning to the tories for the solution to their problems, is a bit like Sonny Bunz in Goodfellas turning to Paulie for help with sorting Tommy's outstanding debt to the Bamboo Lounge. The parties made the scales fall from a lot of eyes. Yes, the British people do want to move on. However, the polls suggest that they want to move on from being ruled by liars and sociopaths.

 

[Machiavelli]

Germany's PR is working.

Our FPTP is working fine.

Horses for courses. Do you have evidence that PR would work in this nation in peace time?

In order to have evidence 'that PR would work in this nation in peace time', it would have to be implemented. As it hasn't been implemented, there is no evidence that it would/has worked and, equally, there is no evidence that it wouldn't/hasn't.

 

[Machiavelli]

It would be amazing if Labour jumped on board.

In reality, with all those Scottish seats lost to the SNP, it’s pretty much their only route to a majority. In addition, the Tories would not yield the same sort of power they’ve enjoyed for decades in power on something like 37% of the electorate. That would be amazing, even if we did have to have the odd Lib Dem/Tory government which (Brexit aside) was nowhere near as incompetent as the Tory governments have been.

The beauty of PR is that it doesn't lead to a party gaining a majority. When you have a plural society -- like we do -- PR can capture the diversity of opinion that is expressed by a multi-party system (which leads to coalitions), rather than the duopoly that we suffer (which usually results in single-party governments).

 

[nicko31]

Germany's PR is working.

Our FPTP is working fine.

Horses for courses. Do you have evidence that PR would work in this nation in peace time?

FPTP fails every time someone says "no point in voting here, Labour (or Tory) always win here"

Only the Vatican a micro state and fascist Belarus use the same system. Our whole system needs a complete overhaul from the Lords to a parliament building suitable for a modern democracy, plus we need some rules written down thanks to recent liars and criminals

 

[Bold Seagull]

When Starmer ran for leader, he was one of four candidates, but don't let that get in the way of personally insulting those who had relatives dying alone.

Sympathy? Empathy?

I've heard the comparison with votes achieved in a leadership contest and I am amazed those quoting it think we're that thick. How on earth is a leadership contest in anyway comparable to a vote of confidence? Amazing.

I guess the genius of politics is going for the lowest common denominator. If you can get ex-pats in Spain to vote out of the EU, then you can obviously get turkeys to vote for Xmas.

 

[Audax]

The beauty of PR is that it doesn't lead to a party gaining a majority. When you have a plural society -- like we do -- PR can capture the diversity of opinion that is expressed by a multi-party system (which leads to coalitions), rather than the duopoly that we suffer (which usually results in single-party governments).

PR can deliver majorities, and has done in some places in the past. However, what it does do is ensure that a majority government genuinely *does* represent a majority of voters.

 

[Audax]

Our FPTP is working fine.

Is it?

At the last GE:

Tory's got 43.6% of the vote yet won 56.2% of the seats.
Labour got 32.1% of the vote for 31.1% of the seats.
SNP got 3.9% of the vote for 7.4% of the seats.
Lib Dems got 11.6% of the vote for 1.7% of the seats.
Greens got 2.61% of the vote for 0.2% of the seats.

That's not a system that's working. The Tory's increased their vote share between 2017 and 2019 by just 1.2%, but that was enough to deliver them an extra 48 seats.

The 4 parties that are clearly opposed (and were clearly opposed at 2019 GE) to the current Tory government got a tick over 50% of the vote at the 2019 GE between them. That the Tory's got in with such a huge seat majority despite having more people vote *against* them than for them is indicative of a democratic system that is *broken*.

 

[Machiavelli]

Is it?

At the last GE:

Tory's got 43.6% of the vote yet won 56.2% of the seats.
Labour got 32.1% of the vote for 31.1% of the seats.
SNP got 3.9% of the vote for 7.4% of the seats.
Lib Dems got 11.6% of the vote for 1.7% of the seats.
Greens got 2.61% of the vote for 0.2% of the seats.

That's not a system that's working. The Tory's increased their vote share between 2017 and 2019 by just 1.2%, but that was enough to deliver them an extra 48 seats.

The 4 parties that are clearly opposed (and were clearly opposed at 2019 GE) to the current Tory government got a tick over 50% of the vote at the 2019 GE between them. That the Tory's got in with such a huge seat majority despite having more people vote *against* them than for them is indicative of a democratic system that is *broken*.

Are you trying to say that, in supporting FPTP, [MENTION=35196]Is it PotG?[/MENTION] has Nicola Sturgeon in his pocket, and is (deliberately? inadvertently) supporting Scottish nationalism leading to the break-up of the union?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Are you trying to say that, in supporting FPTP, [MENTION=35196]Is it PotG?[/MENTION] has Nicola Sturgeon in his pocket, and is (deliberately? inadvertently) supporting Scottish nationalism leading to the break-up of the union?

Well his close friend and confidante, NSC's most ardent Unionist [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] supported Johnson's Border in the Irish Sea that did more for the Unification of Ireland than any politician in the last 100 years. So it's not completely without precedent

Bet I'll get a thumbs up within 60 seconds

 

[WATFORD zero]

Well his close friend and confidante, NSC's most ardent Unionist [MENTION=33253]JC Footy Genius[/MENTION] supported Johnson's Border in the Irish Sea that did more for the Unification of Ireland than any politician in the last 100 years. So it's not completely without precedent

Bet I'll get a thumbs up within 60 seconds

Well that was unexpected

And, back on topic

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Is it?

At the last GE:

Tory's got 43.6% of the vote yet won 56.2% of the seats.
Labour got 32.1% of the vote for 31.1% of the seats.
SNP got 3.9% of the vote for 7.4% of the seats.
Lib Dems got 11.6% of the vote for 1.7% of the seats.
Greens got 2.61% of the vote for 0.2% of the seats.

That's not a system that's working. The Tory's increased their vote share between 2017 and 2019 by just 1.2%, but that was enough to deliver them an extra 48 seats.

The 4 parties that are clearly opposed (and were clearly opposed at 2019 GE) to the current Tory government got a tick over 50% of the vote at the 2019 GE between them. That the Tory's got in with such a huge seat majority despite having more people vote *against* them than for them is indicative of a democratic system that is *broken*.

I am not sure about your inferences. So let's 'model' it to see what 'feels' fair.

Imagine we have 11 constituencies, two parties (A and B), and eleven voters in each constituency.

At one end of extreme outcomes, Party A wins every seat by 6 votes to 5. So they end up 66 votes to party B's 55, but obtain 11 MPs, with party B obtaining none. Change the system to PR and party A would end up with 6 MPs and party B 5. Fair?

At the othere end of the extreme, party A win 5 seats by a margin of 11 votes to 0. They lose the other 6 by a vote of 5 votes to 6. They lose the general election by 5 seats to 6. However change the system to PR, with 85 votes to party B's 36, they win the election by a landslide (9 seasts to 3). Fair?

My preference is to base the outcome on who wins the seat. It may not always 'feel' fair but the alternative is to give disproportionate reward to monocultures. Thus, imagine one constituency where all the voters favour one party (A). Such as Harrogate. Then imagine somewhere else where the the same party is favoured by 45% of the electorate and other party (B) is favoured by 55% of the electorate. You have three boroughs with a 'B' majority, but the net electoral outcome for the four boroughs would be a win for party A. I don't think that's fair.

You could of course make it more complicated, but I thought the idea was to maximize voter turn out, not abandon the franchise to triganomatrists.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

That’s an odd comment Mouldy. I fear the degeneration may already be happening… you have my pity.

What an odd comment Lever.
What is this degeneration you speak of?

 

[TomandJerry]

Rebel Conservative MPs are drawing up plans for “vote strikes” in a bid to paralyse law-making and capitalise on the dramatic Boris Johnson no-confidence vote.

Some of the 148 MPs who voted to oust the prime minister on Monday said they would try to stymie his government’s legislative agenda, as happened at the end of the Theresa May era, by abstaining on key laws.

They plan to start with a showdown over a bill to override sections of the Northern Ireland protocol, to be published within days.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Rebel Conservative MPs are drawing up plans for “vote strikes” in a bid to paralyse law-making and capitalise on the dramatic Boris Johnson no-confidence vote.

Some of the 148 MPs who voted to oust the prime minister on Monday said they would try to stymie his government’s legislative agenda, as happened at the end of the Theresa May era, by abstaining on key laws.

They plan to start with a showdown over a bill to override sections of the Northern Ireland protocol, to be published within days.

Sent from my Pixel 6 using Tapatalk

Good.

That Northern Ireland Protocol bill has to fail.

 

[Stato]

I thought the idea was to maximize voter turn out, not abandon the franchise to triganomatrists.

It does increase voter turnout. Okay, this is from the Electoral Reform's website and you can't take all drivers in isolation, but the figures look fairly clear cut:

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/does-proportional-representation-lead-to-higher-turnout/

 

[drew]

How very Starmer, avoid answering and form it into a negative.

Ok, it would be more representative, would encourage cooperation between elected members rather the current antagonistic approach. It would hopefully mean we don't lurch from one ideology to another.

 

[Robdinho]

I am not sure about your inferences. So let's 'model' it to see what 'feels' fair.

Imagine we have 11 constituencies, two parties (A and B), and eleven voters in each constituency.

At one end of extreme outcomes, Party A wins every seat by 6 votes to 5. So they end up 66 votes to party B's 55, but obtain 11 MPs, with party B obtaining none. Change the system to PR and party A would end up with 6 MPs and party B 5. Fair?

At the othere end of the extreme, party A win 5 seats by a margin of 11 votes to 0. They lose the other 6 by a vote of 5 votes to 6. They lose the general election by 5 seats to 6. However change the system to PR, with 85 votes to party B's 36, they win the election by a landslide (9 seasts to 3). Fair?

My preference is to base the outcome on who wins the seat. It may not always 'feel' fair but the alternative is to give disproportionate reward to monocultures. Thus, imagine one constituency where all the voters favour one party (A). Such as Harrogate. Then imagine somewhere else where the the same party is favoured by 45% of the electorate and other party (B) is favoured by 55% of the electorate. You have three boroughs with a 'B' majority, but the net electoral outcome for the four boroughs would be a win for party A. I don't think that's fair.

You could of course make it more complicated, but I thought the idea was to maximize voter turn out, not abandon the franchise to triganomatrists.

So you've taken 2 extreme examples, decided they show that each method is equally unfair, and yet still decided one is better? An odd approach for a man who purports to value scientific method

The hope of PR is, as you well know, to reduce the 'monoculture' by giving people with an opposing view a reason to vote, where before they would not bother.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Ok, it would be more representative, would encourage cooperation between elected members rather the current antagonistic approach. It would hopefully mean we don't lurch from one ideology to another.

I certainly agree there.

As has been illustrated on many occasions in recent times, we live in an extremely binary society.

A bit of 'sit down and talk it out' would not go amiss.

Always up for a bit of give and take.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Good.

That Northern Ireland Protocol bill has to fail.

The issue is that it has already failed, hence it's impossible to implement. The only choices left are either to implement it or rollback Brexit (via article 16)

The elephant in the room was always where you put the border between the EU's single market and GB's new 'taking back control' market. I don't know how many hundreds of times this was pointed out on the Brexit thread, but every single Brexiteer from Ppf to Nigel Farage stuck their fingers in their ears and shouted 'Project fear' as the solution

Unless of course, there is anyone on NSC who could simply point out where I am wrong and maybe outline a solution for where the border should actually be placed. After 6 years to consider it, that would be brilliant and 'move us on'