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

[WATFORD zero]

The murder of Jo Cox was nothing to do with people on this board, or their degree of tolerance, and (for what it's worth, which isn't much) the murderer didn't vote for Brexit.

I really can't imagine why anyone would post this. However you read it, it really is offensive.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I quite liked the AV system (alternative vote) that we had a referendum on a while before the Brexit ref. The issue I have with the current system is that I have to judge which party is best to support to not end up with a Tory, as that is more important to me than getting Labour, Green, or Liberal. With AV, I could choose the representative I really wanted most, and not feel I wasted my chance to block a Tory from getting in, by stating which other candidates I would prefer if my first choice was not supported enough by others.
As it is, we usually end up with a party in power that much less than half of the population voted for, and it is hard to say how popular they really are, as many of the votes they collected are from people that just really didn't want the likely alternative, be that Lefty Labour or Nasty Tories.

Fair points.

I will have to hold up my hand and disclose that I don't care about either of them, however.

Your ideal voting strategy is still basically 'anyone but the tories' but this time with the fate of your constituency based on what other voters prefer. Perhaps they prefer the tories, in which case how is your Will better served?

I once suggested that if a majority of registered voters fail to vote then the constituency should return no representative. That might get the vote out. Or possibly not. Frankly, yet another thing I don't really care about.

There is also a danger that if we could vote for lots of candidates we would end up with a liberal hegemony, because nobody minds the liberals, do we? So may as well give them a tick as a second preference or whatever.

No, PR of any sort will be embraced only when the voters become sanguine about a coalition. I am a long way from that, and would be happiest (but far from happy) only if the coalition kept the tories out. But I want a labour government, not a coalition, so I suspect all my original points stand. I am not interest in how unfair people who vote Green think it all is. They are a minority and do not warrant a say. Given they want to bin nuclear weapons, and the tories (and labour) don't, what would be the compromise position anyway? No, coalitions, and PR still look like bollocks to me, In the UK. Sorry!

 

[BrianB]

A storyline that The Sopranos would throw out as ' to much grift '?...

Private Eye | Tees freeport : Lies of the land

TEES Valley mayor Ben Houchen has been bombarding social media with claims that the Eye's recent revelations that his South Tees Development Corporation (STDC) sold two pieces of land worth around £100m for £110.35 to a company controlled by local businessmen, Teesworks Ltd, are

www.private-eye.co.uk

 

[beorhthelm]

I suppose a lot of the case with PR depends on whether you think it's more important that we have strong, stable Governments, at the expense of everyone having a vote that counts, or whether there's more of a need for everyone to feel they have an equal and meaningful stake in our democracy, even if this means they can make poor choices.

that's a rational way of arguing for it. unfortunatly many will simply say they want PR to get a "progressive alliance" or outright keep the Tories out, which seems close to rigging the electoral system. analysis of voting patterns show they wouldn't get quite what they expect. one interesting aspect is how large your regions are, for example at city level Brighton wouldn't return a Green MP, as a county Sussex would return same numbers of Consevatives/Labour (10 and 2). its only when you go very large regions or national do you reflect get the full representation people expect, then you've lost all sence of connection between members and localities.

 

[WATFORD zero]

that's a rational way of arguing for it. unfortunatly many will simply say they want PR to get a "progressive alliance" or outright keep the Tories out, which seems close to rigging the electoral system. analysis of voting patterns show they wouldn't get quite what they expect. one interesting aspect is how large your regions are, for example at city level Brighton wouldn't return a Green MP, as a county Sussex would return same numbers of Consevatives/Labour (10 and 2). its only when you go very large regions or national do you reflect get the full representation people expect, then you've lost all sence of connection between members and localities.

And maybe you could show the statistical facts that have led you to this conclusion ?

Thanks

 

[beorhthelm]

And maybe you could show the statistical facts that have led you to this conclusion ?

Thanks

there's a website that will work out the results (https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/? doesnt look like the one i recall though). you can count the votes off Wikipedia for yourself if you like.

 

[WATFORD zero]

there's a website that will work out the results (https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/? doesnt look like the one i recall though). you can count the votes off Wikipedia for yourself if you like.

I just thought that since you are claiming 'this is what would happen' then you may actually be able to explain why. I'm not sure that 'look it up on the Internet' and 'count up numbers on Wikipedia' is actually proving what you have claimed

 

[Nobby]

The murder of Jo Cox was nothing to do with people on this board, or their degree of tolerance, and (for what it's worth, which isn't much) the murderer didn't vote for Brexit.

Sake

 

[beorhthelm]

I just thought that since you are claiming 'this is what would happen' then you may actually be able to explain why. I'm not sure that 'look it up on the Internet' and 'count up numbers on Wikipedia' is actually proving what you have claimed

fair enough, i thought you wanted stats and the workings, not my bungled explanation of PR counting practices.

Edit: and looking at numbers on wiki, applying d'hondt method, my orginal numbers are quite wrong.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

The murder of Jo Cox was nothing to do with people on this board, or their degree of tolerance, and (for what it's worth, which isn't much) the murderer didn't vote for Brexit.

An extraordinary reply.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I suppose a lot of the case with PR depends on whether you think it's more important that we have strong, stable Governments, at the expense of everyone having a vote that counts, or whether there's more of a need for everyone to feel they have an equal and meaningful stake in our democracy, even if this means they can make poor choices.

To be clear, we have regularly had governments in hoc to the DUP or the most extreme tendencies of the Conservatives (or, going further back, the Lib-Lab pact and the two elections in 1974) even with FPTP. The idea that it reliably delivers "strong, stable" government doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. It's just it sometimes does that while also disenfranchising the vast majority of the population at the same time.

No, PR of any sort will be embraced only when the voters become sanguine about a coalition. I am a long way from that, and would be happiest (but far from happy) only if the coalition kept the tories out. But I want a labour government, not a coalition, so I suspect all my original points stand. I am not interest in how unfair people who vote Green think it all is. They are a minority and do not warrant a say. Given they want to bin nuclear weapons, and the tories (and labour) don't, what would be the compromise position anyway? No, coalitions, and PR still look like bollocks to me, In the UK. Sorry!

Do you see any logical difference between the idea of Starmer holding back on what he might actually do to avoid making potential swing voters frit or keeping the left wing of his party on side, and the idea of him compromising on a policy to get the Lib Dems or Greens to vote with Labour? Because to me those look exactly the same thing.
Government is the art of constructive compromise. The sooner, as a country, we accept that the better.
For what it's worth, that's my view as a Labour member, not a Green or Lib Dem voter, so I guess my view can't be dismissed as that of "a minority". Notwithstanding that supporters of any party are in a minority.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

that's a rational way of arguing for it. unfortunatly many will simply say they want PR to get a "progressive alliance" or outright keep the Tories out, which seems close to rigging the electoral system. analysis of voting patterns show they wouldn't get quite what they expect. one interesting aspect is how large your regions are, for example at city level Brighton wouldn't return a Green MP, as a county Sussex would return same numbers of Consevatives/Labour (10 and 2). its only when you go very large regions or national do you reflect get the full representation people expect, then you've lost all sence of connection between members and localities.

Precisely.

To put it crudely when some people don't get the government they want they blame the system, rather than accept that not enough people wanted the same thing as them, and more people wanted something else.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

To be clear, we have regularly had governments in hoc to the DUP or the most extreme tendencies of the Conservatives (or, going further back, the Lib-Lab pact and the two elections in 1974) even with FPTP. The idea that it reliably delivers "strong, stable" government doesn't hold up to any sort of scrutiny. It's just it sometimes does that while also disenfranchising the vast majority of the population at the same time.

Do you see any logical difference between the idea of Starmer holding back on what he might actually do to avoid making potential swing voters frit or keeping the left wing of his party on side, and the idea of him compromising on a policy to get the Lib Dems or Greens to vote with Labour? Because to me those look exactly the same thing.
Government is the art of constructive compromise. The sooner, as a country, we accept that the better.
For what it's worth, that's my view as a Labour member, not a Green or Lib Dem voter, so I guess my view can't be dismissed as that of "a minority". Notwithstanding that supporters of any party are in a minority.

I agree with that.

But only in as much as I expect any leader/party to do what is necessary to persuade the electorate to trust them enough to win in a FPTP system. If they then do stuff that they said they wouldn't, or fail to do what they promised, after the election, then they run the risk of being booted out next time. And so it goes.

In a PR system we would never get what we voted for because the coalition majority party would always have to compromise with other parties after the election.

So it boils down to whether we are happy with a change to the latter (presumably as a trade off against having the party we don't like at all running amok) or not. Presently I would rather stick.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I agree with that.

But only in as much as I expect any leader/party to do what is necessary to persuade the electorate to trust them enough to win in a FPTP system. If they then do stuff that they said they wouldn't, or fail to do what they promised, after the election, then they run the risk of being booted out next time. And so it goes.

In a PR system we would never get what we voted for because the coalition majority party would always have to compromise with other parties after the election.

So it boils down to whether we are happy with a change to the latter (presumably as a trade off against having the party we don't like at all running amok) or not. Presently I would rather stick.

Thank you for disregarding the part of my post that was basically just me bitching at the wording of your previous post
Anyway, do we ever get what we really want? Personally there's plenty of Labour's likely manifesto/position that I could happily junk. I just accept that it's the party closest to my ideal position.
I'd rather the system acknowledged this, and the parties were clear over what compromises they'll make and who they're likely to make them with.
In plenty of countries parties publish recommended lists of how they recommend people rank the candidates, and that strikes me as far more honest and straightforward than insisting you're going for a majority government and then jumping into bed with whoever will take you.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Thank you for disregarding the part of my post that was basically just me bitching at the wording of your previous post
Anyway, do we ever get what we really want? Personally there's plenty of Labour's likely manifesto/position that I could happily junk. I just accept that it's the party closest to my ideal position.
I'd rather the system acknowledged this, and the parties were clear over what compromises they'll make and who they're likely to make them with.
In plenty of countries parties publish recommended lists of how they recommend people rank the candidates, and that strikes me as far more honest and straightforward than insisting you're going for a majority government and then jumping into bed with whoever will take you.

(Shhhhh! But....I don't really trust the electorate, and have considered the possibility of advocating that the country be run by a committee of Wise People. Except that they would soon turn into dicks. Sorry, dictators. So I can live with the 'let them have a go then chuck them out after a few years if they start getting too cocky/lazy/useless' system).

Too much transparency and accountability simply leads to litigation. Never shine daylight on magic. Or, on trickery, anyway....

And....we always get the governments we deserve.

At least on NSC you can put the dick heads on ignore.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

And....we always get the governments we deserve.

Well, 40% or so of us do. I'm not taking responsibility for this shower

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Well, 40% or so of us do. I'm not taking responsibility for this shower

I said deserve, not desire

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I said deserve, not desire

And I reiterate, I don't deserve this nonsense.

 

[Carbonara]

So right in front of our eyes the government is attempting a cover upIncredible. This kind of corruption is something we in our arrogant way would normally associate
only with other countries.

 

[jimhigham]

I propose we are run by a benign dictatorship overseen by Pascal Groß.

And before you snigger, could he really do any worse than the clown car we have minding the shop right now?