Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
It's a different voting system that's all. AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently? For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by. For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable. A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less. Something like FPTP.
The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
Well yes. And whose fault is that? There is nowt to stop them returning. Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole. It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced. Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
I didn't think he was blaming the system for LD unpopularity, just noting that has happened.
I wasn't blaming the system as you say just that lib dems are just not visible anymore but lots of local independents
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
I fancy having a go at this one. Democracy derives its legitimacy from the people of the nation rather than from God or from the ghost of Karl Marx or whatever else. Therefore the governance of the nation must reflect the views of the population on the matters of the day. Given that people are nuanced and often hold differing views on differing topics we need a way of polling the nation on their views in order to gain and retain that legitimacy. That means either direct democracy (a series of plebiscites), elections or both. Given that plebiscites often create incoherent policy that contradicts itself, we usually select representatives to speak on behalf of an area or group in an assembly.
So that we don't just end up with incoherence on a smaller scale with lots of independent members having an argument, political parties exist as a compromise that allows the reconciliation of conflicting viewpoints by allowing voters to select a policy platform that aligns most closely with their own views, even if it isn't a perfect match.
In order to reconcile the conflicting demands of a coherent government with the desire that the government truly reflects the view of the majority of the populace (and therefore retains its legitimacy), you need to design a voting system that enables that.
FPTP creates coherent government but, in my view, fails the second and more fundamental test of legitimising the result. If you have only a binary choice, it is fine, but in a world where more than two policy platforms are available it does not scale well. You end up with situations like 2005 when Labour took 35% of the popular vote but secured 55% of the seats. It is difficult to see how this passes the test of whether the government reflects the popular will of the body politic, and therefore calls the legitimacy of the system into doubt.
Proportional systems create less coherent government at times, with coalitons liable to fall and governments taking a long time to form. However, when well designed they reflect absolutely the choices of the population at the moment of the poll. In that respect I believe they are better for the legitimacy of the system. That you often end up moderating the extremes of parties if you are to become coalitionable is merely a happy by-product. I believe democracies only last if they genuinely reflect the preferences of their people, otherwise resentment towards institutions and the government itself can only grow when aberrant results occur. I don't believe we should compromise the legitimacy of the institution for the coherence of government. It should be the other way around, because after all we can always have another election if necessary.
Thanks. Good stuff and a very enjoyable read. I shall go away and think.
No problem. You're right that it's sometimes possible to neglect the principles of an argument and just get bogged down in mechanism.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
I'd be fascinated to know what the relationship between proportionality and instability actually is, looking at the experiences of the countries of the democratic world as a whole, rather than cherry picking notorious outliers like Italy in order to prove a point. You could just as easily point to the total mess that Westminster politics has been in since 2016 (regardless of whether there has been a majority government or not) then compare this to Scotland (where the parliament has continued to function throughout its history without recourse to early dissolutions and snap elections) and conclude that PR must result in better outcomes.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
It's a different voting system that's all. AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently? For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by. For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable. A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less. Something like FPTP.
The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
Well yes. And whose fault is that? There is nowt to stop them returning?
Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole. It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced. Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
I am surprised you feel this way.
How can it be appropriate to choose a voting system because it is advantageous to the governing parties?
That’s the very definition of gerrymandering.
As for Scotland, the fall of Labour/rise of SNP did not happen under the system currently proposed by Labour/PC.
I actually don't really. I just thought your original choice of wording was hyperbolically strong. The fact is. The Tories don't win in Wales because they aren't popular. No amount of tinkering will change that. Only a change of attitude, leadership and policies will. And your last point is irrelevant. The sheer quantity of SNP votes in Scotland would have made them the government under any imaginable system. If the elected government can't change a voting system, then we'd still have Rotten Boroughs. And if they can change it, why on earth would they do so to one which was worse for their chances?
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Spotify played me ‘Take it Easy’ unexpectedly this afternoon. Which prompted me to play some more Eagles. A great era of music.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Hope you enjoy it! Plant and Krauss played Glasto yesterday, I think. On iplayer now, I will catch up with it.
I’ve been once, 2000, and it is that big, and there’s so much going on, that even if you’re not fussed about what’s happening on the larger stages you’ll find something worth watching somewhere on site.
I really should go again. It is a fantastic experience. Shit if it pisses it down though. Friends have suffered that fate, sounds horrific. What puts me off really.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
That's completely fine in my view. I would rather see an election than a government fail to operate or be captured by its extremes. To my mind, the failure condition of FPTP (a powerful government that does not represent the people it governs) is much more egregious than the failure of a PR system (a weak government that collapses quickly) because it undermines confidence in the principle of democracy itself rather than the participants. If anything I think Italy is actually a success story, where governments that are useless, weak or immoral fall before they can do any real damage. Italian democracy lives despite having some bloody awful and corrupt politicians. Israel is an atypical case since it has a sectarian element that makes deadlock much more likely (such as in NI). There are plenty of nations that elect in this manner like Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and so on that are quite capable of producing stable governments through coalition.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Spotify played me ‘Take it Easy’ unexpectedly this afternoon. Which prompted me to play some more Eagles. A great era of music.
Never liked the Eagles all that much. Except for Hotel California of course which is a work of genius so superior to their other output it is still hard to believe it was by the same group.
@dixiedean you still don’t get it. You seem to concede it is a gerrymander, but object to my original post where I called it such.
A democracy requires the rules to be fair for all players, this is designed to reward Labour and PC, punish the Tories, and keep out smaller parties.
I suspect it will also encourage nationalist opinion in Wales (because protest votes will not be able to go anywhere else), but that’s a different issue.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency. Are you arguing the LD's haven't ever achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency? Cos they have.
Many years ago, I picked up an Associated Press Stylebook -- and was surprised to learn that news folks define North America as "Canada, Mexico, the United States, and Danish territory of Greenland". Geographers, according to Wikipedia, include almost all of Central America in North America: "The continent is delimited on the southeast by most geographers at the Darién watershed along the Colombia-Panama border, placing almost all of Panama within North America." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_America#Countries,_dependencies,_and_other_territories
Some geologists put the division line further north, closer to where the news folks do.
And, just to confuse things further, NAFTA doesn't include Greenland.
So, there are at least four possible definitions of "North America".
(Before I ran into the Stylebook, I would have put the division at the Panama Canal.)
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency. Are you arguing the LD's haven't ever achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency? Cos they have.
its the same as the eu elections were. didn't stop ukip/brexit
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency. Are you arguing the LD's haven't achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
It’s 15% in a region.
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency. Are you arguing the LD's haven't achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
It’s 15% in a region.
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
No, it's 15% (effectively actually about 12%) in one of 16 constituencies, each one consisting of two Westminster constituencies on the new boundaries.
@dixiedean you still don’t get it. You seem to concede it is a gerrymander, but object to my original post where I called it such.
A democracy requires the rules to be fair for all players, this is designed to reward Labour and PC, punish the Tories, and keep out smaller parties.
I suspect it will also encourage nationalist opinion in Wales (because protest votes will not be able to go anywhere else), but that’s a different issue.
We will have to disagree then. To me. The whole idea that we can't, as a nation, agree a standard voting system is one of the signs of our decline. The various Council systems are baffling. But I can't see this particular one as any more egregious than any other.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency. Are you arguing the LD's haven't achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
It’s 15% in a region.
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
It's a different voting system that's all. AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently? For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by. For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable. A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less. Something like FPTP.
The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
Well yes. And whose fault is that? There is nowt to stop them returning?
Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole. It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced. Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
I am surprised you feel this way.
How can it be appropriate to choose a voting system because it is advantageous to the governing parties?
That’s the very definition of gerrymandering.
As for Scotland, the fall of Labour/rise of SNP did not happen under the system currently proposed by Labour/PC.
I actually don't really. I just thought your original choice of wording was hyperbolically strong. The fact is. The Tories don't win in Wales because they aren't popular. No amount of tinkering will change that. Only a change of attitude, leadership and policies will. And your last point is irrelevant. The sheer quantity of SNP votes in Scotland would have made them the government under any imaginable system. If the elected government can't change a voting system, then we'd still have Rotten Boroughs. And if they can change it, why on earth would they do so to one which was worse for their chances?
I don't like it because it isn't proportional. In effect no party that consistently scores less than about 16% gets no representation at all. No Libdem, Green, RefUK or even UKI representatives.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Spotify played me ‘Take it Easy’ unexpectedly this afternoon. Which prompted me to play some more Eagles. A great era of music.
Never liked the Eagles all that much. Except for Hotel California of course which is a work of genius so superior to their other output it is still hard to believe it was by the same group.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
That's completely fine in my view. I would rather see an election than a government fail to operate or be captured by its extremes. To my mind, the failure condition of FPTP (a powerful government that does not represent the people it governs) is much more egregious than the failure of a PR system (a weak government that collapses quickly) because it undermines confidence in the principle of democracy itself rather than the participants. If anything I think Italy is actually a success story, where governments that are useless, weak or immoral fall before they can do any real damage. Italian democracy lives despite having some bloody awful and corrupt politicians. Israel is an atypical case since it has a sectarian element that makes deadlock much more likely (such as in NI). There are plenty of nations that elect in this manner like Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and so on that are quite capable of producing stable governments through coalition.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'
This is an account, though a little polemical, of what normal men think their responsibilities are anyway.
The view that, in a civilized community, men should be able to choose whether they take their children responsibilities renders you a pariah.
BTW does this account give men an equal choice with women as to whether the embryo should be allowed to carry on living?
It simply isn't possible to come up with a rhetorical equivalent to a woman being forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term for a man. The health risks, the consequent lifelong responsibility for another, or the decision to give away what was a part of yourself.
Cyclefree has tried with her suggestion of compulsory vasectomies, but it really isn't the same at all. So there is no way to propose to make men bear the consequences of a decision to outlaw abortion.
The only way to make this issue as urgent for men as it is for women would be something like a general women's strike - no sex, no housework, no childcare - until women were granted control of their bodies.
I live in a world in which most men love and respect women, and have mothers, sisters, partners, daughters, grand daughters and dedicate their lives to their welfare. They regard this as the greatest trust they ever will have, and all their relationships with women and girls as between sovereign equals. I am fortunate but I hope I am not alone in this.
I believe that abortion should be safe and legal because I am a feminist and I want it to be rare because I want societies and people to act in ways which make that possible.
A feminist who nevertheless doesn't consider a woman's right to terminate an unwanted or untenable pregnancy in the 1st trimester to be something so fundamental to female empowerment that it ought to be enshrined at a level above the elected executive, eg in a constitution protected and dynamically interpreted for the contemporary world without fear or favour by an independent judiciary.
That's fair, isn't it?
Being in the UK I have managed so far in just such a country. In the UK all abortion is banned and criminalised except those cases which fall within a statutory exception. We get by. There are no constitutional rights to abortion whatsoever.
Being a feminist and a democrat are not incompatible occupations. If the people of the USA have to learn that democratic rights are democratically achieved that's the way it is.
There should be no fundamental human rights that an elected executive with voter support should be unable to remove.
There should be such rights but female bodily autonomy (with caveats in middle and late pregnancy) isn't one of them.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency.
Are you arguing the LD's haven't achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
It’s 15% in a region.
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
No it isn't.
It really is. In fact, NZ even debated reducing its 5% threshold to 4% for a while as several parties seemed to miss out by a very tiny margin.
This is a 15% threshold, but forgetting the mechanics the plain effect is to keep Lab/PC in and the rest down or out.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
It's a different voting system that's all. AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently? For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by. For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable. A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less. Something like FPTP.
The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
Well yes. And whose fault is that? There is nowt to stop them returning?
Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole. It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced. Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
I am surprised you feel this way.
How can it be appropriate to choose a voting system because it is advantageous to the governing parties?
That’s the very definition of gerrymandering.
As for Scotland, the fall of Labour/rise of SNP did not happen under the system currently proposed by Labour/PC.
I actually don't really. I just thought your original choice of wording was hyperbolically strong. The fact is. The Tories don't win in Wales because they aren't popular. No amount of tinkering will change that. Only a change of attitude, leadership and policies will. And your last point is irrelevant. The sheer quantity of SNP votes in Scotland would have made them the government under any imaginable system. If the elected government can't change a voting system, then we'd still have Rotten Boroughs. And if they can change it, why on earth would they do so to one which was worse for their chances?
I don't like it because it isn't proportional. In effect no party that consistently scores less than about 16% gets no representation at all. No Libdem, Green, RefUK or even UKI representatives.
But they do get representation if they win c 12% across 2 Westminster constituencies. Not consistently at all. It isn't the system I'd choose, no. But it is no worse than any other.
Noel Gallacher singing Oasis songs in front of 100k. Just doesn't get much better than that without being there.
I’d pay good money not to witness that.
Ah Stuart, we agree about so much but musical differences are going to drive us apart.
Love will tear us apart.
My taste is… err…. eclectic. If we omit all the Swedish, Gaelic, French, Scots, Danish, Italian and Norwegian stuff, my Spotify listening today included: The Stranglers, Dinah Washington, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, The Proclaimers, Run DMC, Prince, Bob Dylan, The Eagles, The Clash, Roberta Flack, Morecombe and Wise, The Muppets, Kate Bush, Elton John, Steve Miller Band, Susanne Vega, Billy Joel, Kenny Rodgers, Cat Stevens, The Dubliners, The Beautiful South, The Band, Deacon Blue, Eartha Kitt and Carly Simon. Missed a few.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Spotify played me ‘Take it Easy’ unexpectedly this afternoon. Which prompted me to play some more Eagles. A great era of music.
Never liked the Eagles all that much. Except for Hotel California of course which is a work of genius so superior to their other output it is still hard to believe it was by the same group.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency.
Are you arguing the LD's haven't achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
It’s 15% in a region.
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
No it isn't.
It really is. In fact, NZ even debated reducing its 5% threshold to 4% for a while as several parties seemed to miss out by a very tiny margin.
This is a 15% threshold, but forgetting the mechanics the plain effect is to keep Lab/PC in and the rest down or out.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
It's a different voting system that's all. AIUI there will be 16 constituencies each electing 6 members by d'Hondt. Why shouldn't the LD's win some? They had multiple Welsh seats recently? For me, such an arrangement would be better suited to STV like N Ireland, but that's by the by. For the Tories there's a simple answer. Become more popular in Wales, and less uncoalitionable. A true gerrymander would be a system where you could win a stonking majority on 43% of the vote or much less. Something like FPTP.
The Lib Dems used to be quite popular in Wales but they have virtually become extinct
Well yes. And whose fault is that? There is nowt to stop them returning?
Calling it a gerrymander is ridiculous hyperbole. It's a different voting system chosen by the parties in power because it is, for the moment, advantageous to them. As was the Scottish system to Labour when devolution was introduced. Saying "you could never vote them out", is ludicrous. See Scotland.
I am surprised you feel this way.
How can it be appropriate to choose a voting system because it is advantageous to the governing parties?
That’s the very definition of gerrymandering.
As for Scotland, the fall of Labour/rise of SNP did not happen under the system currently proposed by Labour/PC.
I actually don't really. I just thought your original choice of wording was hyperbolically strong. The fact is. The Tories don't win in Wales because they aren't popular. No amount of tinkering will change that. Only a change of attitude, leadership and policies will. And your last point is irrelevant. The sheer quantity of SNP votes in Scotland would have made them the government under any imaginable system.
If the elected government can't change a voting system, then we'd still have Rotten Boroughs. And if they can change it, why on earth would they do so to one which was worse for their chances?
I don't like it because it isn't proportional. In effect no party that consistently scores less than about 16% gets no representation at all. No Libdem, Green, RefUK or even UKI representatives.
But they do get representation if they win c 12% across 2 Westminster constituencies. Not consistently at all. It isn't the system I'd choose, no. But it is no worse than any other.
Just naive. We will see the effect in 2026 I believe.
Apologies for missing the Opinium. We were dancing.
Now this is interesting. Below mini thread is two weeks old. It’s where Sunil - aw bless him - called PBs Psephology Eminence “lucky” for calling the last Opinium spot on - so I gave him todays poll outcome two weeks ago - again, spot on.
Sunil_Prasannan said: « hide previous quotes MoonRabbit said: dixiedean said: EPG said: MoonRabbit said: HYUFD said: Johnson cuts the Labour lead to just 2% with Opinium tonight after winning his VONC last week.
How more helpful and polite can I say this? 😆 What exactly have Opinium done to the headline figures? They've got new methodology. They call it building in swingback. They get the raw figures sort of in line with the 6 7 8’s everyone else reporting, and work under the bonnet on idea governments “always” get a certain swing back once elections are announced and campaigns underway, this firm reckon they can say know how much and adjust it into the figures their survey actually returned. I think the mainstream media are more grown up about this these days so you won’t see any silly “labour lead slashed to two” headlines from them like some posts here this evening.
I love this poll, and the fact it’s two a month, because it’s always so predictable for the better and smarter poll analysts (like I was spot on tonight) so I really feel if the headline figures for each party show a consistent shift in this one we can believe it’s going on. I call it luck! It’s actually easy Sunhil. The gaps never been more than 4, labour never more than 38, Tories never lower than the 33 last time that was 33 playing 36, and post vonc polls from other firms, though not many, have been static (let’s see what happens after two weeks) It was easy, and why this poll will be the one to quickly reveal the % for each party is on the move.
I’ll show you how easy it is by telling you the result of the next Opinium poll right here right now. Labour 37/38, Tories 34/33. And I’ll explain why. The post vonc narrative now building and will dominate next few weeks of a governing party split and at war, with awful impact on policies, will feed into that next poll, but it will be surprising if it shifts this methodology more than into gap of 3 or 4.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Spotify played me ‘Take it Easy’ unexpectedly this afternoon. Which prompted me to play some more Eagles. A great era of music.
Never liked the Eagles all that much. Except for Hotel California of course which is a work of genius so superior to their other output it is still hard to believe it was by the same group.
Peaceful easy feeling and Take it easy are ok
Yes, ok. Hotel California is just one of the all time greats.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Spotify played me ‘Take it Easy’ unexpectedly this afternoon. Which prompted me to play some more Eagles. A great era of music.
Thoroughly enjoyed Wolf Alice (on iplayer). Only band from that generation who have caught my jaded attention apart from Australia's Goon Sax (check them out - gonna be big).
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
That's completely fine in my view. I would rather see an election than a government fail to operate or be captured by its extremes. To my mind, the failure condition of FPTP (a powerful government that does not represent the people it governs) is much more egregious than the failure of a PR system (a weak government that collapses quickly) because it undermines confidence in the principle of democracy itself rather than the participants. If anything I think Italy is actually a success story, where governments that are useless, weak or immoral fall before they can do any real damage. Italian democracy lives despite having some bloody awful and corrupt politicians. Israel is an atypical case since it has a sectarian element that makes deadlock much more likely (such as in NI). There are plenty of nations that elect in this manner like Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and so on that are quite capable of producing stable governments through coalition.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
FPTP is no guarantor of moderation. One attraction of a change of system is that it would make a repetition of 2019, where our wonderful non-extremist broad church parties offered us a choice between consigning our fates to Sociopathic Narcissism and the Start the War With Israel Coalition, considerably less likely. And, as you have conceded, the less said about the broad coalitions of broadly centrist politicians that the same electoral procedure has gifted to the Americans, the better.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency.
Are you arguing the LD's haven't achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
It’s 15% in a region.
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
No it isn't.
It really is. In fact, NZ even debated reducing its 5% threshold to 4% for a while as several parties seemed to miss out by a very tiny margin.
This is a 15% threshold, but forgetting the mechanics the plain effect is to keep Lab/PC in and the rest down or out.
It isn't a 15% threshold!!!!
That’s right. Strictly speaking it’s 16.6%, but likely to be lower in effect due to parties not making the overall count.
If you assume that 20% of the vote falls outside the big 3, as was the case in 2021, it’s effectively 13.3%.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Spotify played me ‘Take it Easy’ unexpectedly this afternoon. Which prompted me to play some more Eagles. A great era of music.
Never liked the Eagles all that much. Except for Hotel California of course which is a work of genius so superior to their other output it is still hard to believe it was by the same group.
Peaceful easy feeling and Take it easy are ok
Yes, ok. Hotel California is just one of the all time greats.
The Eagles would be nothing without some input from Jackson Browne along the way. Hardly anyone in UK seems to have heard of him in my experience though.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
I'm not sure that's true - FPTP does allow for radical Governments to be elected and even if the two main parties are basically the same (Butskellism anyone?) one was more dominant than the other in terms of seats though much less so in terms of votes.
FPTP reduces plurality - in a democracy, it's important (I believe) for as many voices to be represented and heard as possible. That applies both to Newham Council and to national Government. If you have a system where significant minorities of the electorate are simply not represented (whether Conservatives in Newham, Lib Dems in Wales or other examples) that must impact on the effectiveness and engagement of local and national democracy.
Many countries work well with coalition Government and I'm quite sure if we moved to STV in the UK we'd have a recognisable centre-right bloc of parties and a recognisable centre-left bloc with a few other parties not adhering to either bloc or moving between them but at least more and different strands of opinion would be represented and heard - in the current system not only are some voices unrepresented but even within parties the dominance of certain viewpoints means others are suppressed.
The outcome is people become politically "homeless" - that would be less likely under STV as smaller niche parties would exist which could co-operate on some issues but not on others.
I believe that's called concensus - a term some don't like but I think works well.
Tres said: "from my partner's social media, gaining support from both the pro-choice and pro-life sides::
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'"
And now you know why the lateHugh Hefner was such a strong proponent of abortion.
When I was growing up decades ago (before Roe) boys in my rural area understood that, if we got a girl pregnant, we would have to marry her.
And that social rule was found in other places. Political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr. likes to tell the story of a boy in an Italian neighborhood being persuaded to do the right thing by the local Mafia boss. When the boy didn't come up with an engagement ring on his own, the boss called him in for a little chat -- and the boy showed up at the girl's home with a ring promptly. (The next day, if I recall correctly.)
Apologies for missing the Opinium. We were dancing.
Now this is interesting. Below mini thread is two weeks old. It’s where Sunil - aw bless him - called PBs Psephology Eminence “lucky” for calling the last Opinium spot on - so I gave him todays poll outcome two weeks ago - again, spot on.
Sunil_Prasannan said: « hide previous quotes MoonRabbit said: dixiedean said: EPG said: MoonRabbit said: HYUFD said: Johnson cuts the Labour lead to just 2% with Opinium tonight after winning his VONC last week.
How more helpful and polite can I say this? 😆 What exactly have Opinium done to the headline figures? They've got new methodology. They call it building in swingback. They get the raw figures sort of in line with the 6 7 8’s everyone else reporting, and work under the bonnet on idea governments “always” get a certain swing back once elections are announced and campaigns underway, this firm reckon they can say know how much and adjust it into the figures their survey actually returned. I think the mainstream media are more grown up about this these days so you won’t see any silly “labour lead slashed to two” headlines from them like some posts here this evening.
I love this poll, and the fact it’s two a month, because it’s always so predictable for the better and smarter poll analysts (like I was spot on tonight) so I really feel if the headline figures for each party show a consistent shift in this one we can believe it’s going on. I call it luck! It’s actually easy Sunhil. The gaps never been more than 4, labour never more than 38, Tories never lower than the 33 last time that was 33 playing 36, and post vonc polls from other firms, though not many, have been static (let’s see what happens after two weeks) It was easy, and why this poll will be the one to quickly reveal the % for each party is on the move.
I’ll show you how easy it is by telling you the result of the next Opinium poll right here right now. Labour 37/38, Tories 34/33. And I’ll explain why. The post vonc narrative now building and will dominate next few weeks of a governing party split and at war, with awful impact on policies, will feed into that next poll, but it will be surprising if it shifts this methodology more than into gap of 3 or 4.
By all means keep this.
"I call it luck!" - Han Solo in the original Star Wars (1977).
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
I'm not sure that's true - FPTP does allow for radical Governments to be elected and even if the two main parties are basically the same (Butskellism anyone?) one was more dominant than the other in terms of seats though much less so in terms of votes.
FPTP reduces plurality - in a democracy, it's important (I believe) for as many voices to be represented and heard as possible. That applies both to Newham Council and to national Government. If you have a system where significant minorities of the electorate are simply not represented (whether Conservatives in Newham, Lib Dems in Wales or other examples) that must impact on the effectiveness and engagement of local and national democracy.
Many countries work well with coalition Government and I'm quite sure if we moved to STV in the UK we'd have a recognisable centre-right bloc of parties and a recognisable centre-left bloc with a few other parties not adhering to either bloc or moving between them but at least more and different strands of opinion would be represented and heard - in the current system not only are some voices unrepresented but even within parties the dominance of certain viewpoints means others are suppressed.
The outcome is people become politically "homeless" - that would be less likely under STV as smaller niche parties would exist which could co-operate on some issues but not on others.
I believe that's called concensus - a term some don't like but I think works well.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Wait till you see what Labour and PC have cooked up for Wales. Gerrymandering for perpetual rule is never a good look, especially when Wales seems to be fully rotted by years of one-party-rule already.
Their latest recommendations is to abolish all 30mph zones and replace them with 20mph
My point is that you will never be able to vote them out, whatever speed limit you prefer…
Whyever not?
It creates an effective 15% threshold, so only Lab, PC and Cons will be elected.
Since the Cons are likely uncoalitionable in that context, Lab and PC are unlikely ever to relinquish power.
They could always vote Tory or something else though. They aren't forbidding that. It looked impossible for Labour to lose Scotland at one time either.
Yes but the Tories would need to gain a majority of votes. That is v unlikely both as an objective fact under PR systems, and also given Welsh history and context.
It’s a gerrymander.
Asking that the government of a place has the support of 50%+1 of the votes cast is the very opposite of a gerrymander.
It is if you block parties who cannot achieve 15% but who may help the Tories reach 50%+1.
I mean I think the Tories are scum, and the Welsh Tories pure idiots, but I do know a gerrymander when I see it.
Bear in mind that that's 15% in one of the 16 constituencies (and bearing in mind it's d'Hondt with six seats than 1/7th of the vote will guarantee a seat and 12% will almost always bring in a seat). Under FPTP you need around 30% and a lucky streak to win a seat, a party could win 25% in every constituency at a general election and not win a single MP, in the Welsh proposal that could get around 20 of the 96 seats.
You (and Dixie Dean) are comparing it with FPTP which is apples vs oranges.
Wales already uses PR, this new system effectively blocks the Lib Dems, and the various Ukippy parties, and further provides an almost insuperable barrier for any new party that might be formed.
But it blocks nobody. They merely have to be elected. The idea it is unimaginable that either LD or a Ukippy Party would win c.15% (and most likely less) in particular areas of Wales is ludicrous. They've both done it relatively recently. They could do it again. As have various Labour rebels.
But it blocks any party under 15%. And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
It isn't 15% nationally. It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency.
Are you arguing the LD's haven't achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
It’s 15% in a region.
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
No it isn't.
It really is. In fact, NZ even debated reducing its 5% threshold to 4% for a while as several parties seemed to miss out by a very tiny margin.
This is a 15% threshold, but forgetting the mechanics the plain effect is to keep Lab/PC in and the rest down or out.
It isn't a 15% threshold!!!!
That’s right. Strictly speaking it’s 16.6%, but likely to be lower in effect due to parties not making the overall count.
If you assume that 20% of the vote falls outside the big 3, as was the case in 2021, it’s effectively 13.3%.
It's not 16.6% either, you need (1/(number of seats + 1)) + 1 to guarantee a seat because if you have that 14.3% then the worse you can be is sixth elected under d'Hondt.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
That's completely fine in my view. I would rather see an election than a government fail to operate or be captured by its extremes. To my mind, the failure condition of FPTP (a powerful government that does not represent the people it governs) is much more egregious than the failure of a PR system (a weak government that collapses quickly) because it undermines confidence in the principle of democracy itself rather than the participants. If anything I think Italy is actually a success story, where governments that are useless, weak or immoral fall before they can do any real damage. Italian democracy lives despite having some bloody awful and corrupt politicians. Israel is an atypical case since it has a sectarian element that makes deadlock much more likely (such as in NI). There are plenty of nations that elect in this manner like Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and so on that are quite capable of producing stable governments through coalition.
I agree. I love the drama of FPTP, its potential for sweeping change, and it's the best chance of me getting the sort of policies I'd like to see enacted, but it isn't a fair system and it doesn't make for good government imo, so I'd vote for PR if we were asked. Need to keep the constituency link but that shouldn't be beyond our design skills.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
That's completely fine in my view. I would rather see an election than a government fail to operate or be captured by its extremes. To my mind, the failure condition of FPTP (a powerful government that does not represent the people it governs) is much more egregious than the failure of a PR system (a weak government that collapses quickly) because it undermines confidence in the principle of democracy itself rather than the participants. If anything I think Italy is actually a success story, where governments that are useless, weak or immoral fall before they can do any real damage. Italian democracy lives despite having some bloody awful and corrupt politicians. Israel is an atypical case since it has a sectarian element that makes deadlock much more likely (such as in NI). There are plenty of nations that elect in this manner like Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and so on that are quite capable of producing stable governments through coalition.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
That's completely fine in my view. I would rather see an election than a government fail to operate or be captured by its extremes. To my mind, the failure condition of FPTP (a powerful government that does not represent the people it governs) is much more egregious than the failure of a PR system (a weak government that collapses quickly) because it undermines confidence in the principle of democracy itself rather than the participants. If anything I think Italy is actually a success story, where governments that are useless, weak or immoral fall before they can do any real damage. Italian democracy lives despite having some bloody awful and corrupt politicians. Israel is an atypical case since it has a sectarian element that makes deadlock much more likely (such as in NI). There are plenty of nations that elect in this manner like Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and so on that are quite capable of producing stable governments through coalition.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
FPTP is no guarantor of moderation. One attraction of a change of system is that it would make a repetition of 2019, where our wonderful non-extremist broad church parties offered us a choice between consigning our fates to Sociopathic Narcissism and the Start the War With Israel Coalition, considerably less likely. And, as you have conceded, the less said about the broad coalitions of broadly centrist politicians that the same electoral procedure has gifted to the Americans, the better.
There are no guarantees. But the chances of extremists gaining control are higher when we have multiple splinter parties existing on small differences. And, frankly, the compromises that politicians need to learn to make broad coalitions are an absolutely necessary part of being fit and able to govern.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
I'm not sure that's true - FPTP does allow for radical Governments to be elected and even if the two main parties are basically the same (Butskellism anyone?) one was more dominant than the other in terms of seats though much less so in terms of votes.
FPTP reduces plurality - in a democracy, it's important (I believe) for as many voices to be represented and heard as possible. That applies both to Newham Council and to national Government. If you have a system where significant minorities of the electorate are simply not represented (whether Conservatives in Newham, Lib Dems in Wales or other examples) that must impact on the effectiveness and engagement of local and national democracy.
Many countries work well with coalition Government and I'm quite sure if we moved to STV in the UK we'd have a recognisable centre-right bloc of parties and a recognisable centre-left bloc with a few other parties not adhering to either bloc or moving between them but at least more and different strands of opinion would be represented and heard - in the current system not only are some voices unrepresented but even within parties the dominance of certain viewpoints means others are suppressed.
The outcome is people become politically "homeless" - that would be less likely under STV as smaller niche parties would exist which could co-operate on some issues but not on others.
I believe that's called concensus - a term some don't like but I think works well.
As an additon to that, it provides a steam valve for bits of each party to schism off into their own thing and test the electorate's tolerances for them. That happened in Scotland with Alba. If you're the Socialist Campaign Group or the One Nation Caucus you have no incentive to break off and form your own party lest the fate of TIG be yours. You still have your broad tents, they just exist between aligned parties rather than being a marquee of unhappy familiy members who want to kill each other but can't leave.
Burnham declares his desire to lead Labour and introduce PR
So many posts on here supporting PR maybe he has a point
And he would at least be an improvement on the present leader of the opposition
No he wouldn't. He is not the politician he thinks he is
Nor is his PR what he thinks it is if he is just knocking on about AV (which, after all, was rejected by the electorate in 2011).
I think there's a strong argument for extending proportionality at local level - Labour won 61.5% of the vote in Newham in May but 97% of the seats (64). The Greens won 17% of the vote and just 3% of the seats (2) - the Conservatives got 14% and nothing.
Under strict proportionality, Labour would have had 41 seats, 11 for the Greens, 9 for the Conservatives, 3 for the LDs and 2 for the TUSC. Labour would still be in charge of course but you would hear a plurality and diversity of opinion in the Council chamber rather than mostly the same voices with the occasional Green response.
I am much less convinced about Westminster elections where there is a special and historic relationship between "the member" and "the constituency" and the risk is of establishing two "classes" of MP though that happens in many other countries seemingly without a problem so perhaps it's not as significant as we think, or is it?
In my personal experience it works really well in Scotland.
It's a measure of how bad FPTP is that, while the Holyrood system combines some of the worst aspects of FPTP with some of the worst variants of PR (closed lists) I still prefer it to FPTP alone.
There are several alternatives for Westminster that would be better, and I'd be delighted if the system at Holyrood was improved.
Just a general observation on PR. There are two separate questions, but both are essential. People discuss the merits of different systems often as if they know - it's obvious - that there is some sort of meritorious outcome that X or Y delivers better.
This puts the cart before the horse. Democracy (which is the bedrock of the subject) is neither one thing nor obvious. It seems to me that what people need to do is explain first what sort of outcome they think best, what sort of democracy and government formation is the best outcome, and why, and then explain how it is best achieved by which voting system.
The biggest objection to FPTP from PR fans seems to be that it allows the Tories to win a majority.
I personally would love to have 69 governments in 80 years like in Italy, and I'm sure Brenda from Bristol and her like would enjoy five elections in two years, like Israel.
That's completely fine in my view. I would rather see an election than a government fail to operate or be captured by its extremes. To my mind, the failure condition of FPTP (a powerful government that does not represent the people it governs) is much more egregious than the failure of a PR system (a weak government that collapses quickly) because it undermines confidence in the principle of democracy itself rather than the participants. If anything I think Italy is actually a success story, where governments that are useless, weak or immoral fall before they can do any real damage. Italian democracy lives despite having some bloody awful and corrupt politicians. Israel is an atypical case since it has a sectarian element that makes deadlock much more likely (such as in NI). There are plenty of nations that elect in this manner like Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Norway and so on that are quite capable of producing stable governments through coalition.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
That fell down in 2019 though.
To a degree it did. And we have a pretty awful government as a result. We need to get it back again.
"Glastonbury: more middle-class than a Waitrose olive counter"
I caught up with the wolf Alice, Sam fender sets this afternoon, both very good. And the Billie Eilish, who was a touch Disney time with bad language. 😒
Watched and enjoyed Crowded House, which has a lot of memories for me. Billy Eilish I dont know the music and I don’t get her, so I turned off...
Sometimes an album can be quite atmospheric, but the songs don’t work same live. She’s like someone from Disney time, so jolly and cheesy.
Primal Scream opened with swastika from xtrmtr? It sounded so flat, mogodon remix I moved on straight away.
The avalanches live soon, they could be fun.
Ooooooh Frankie Sinatra
Weirdly just listening to the Primal Scream set and whilst I loved a lot of their music in my teens I get really pissed off with bands that are crap live.
When you rewatch the Cure’s set from a couple of years ago where they are so ridiculously tight - almost recording studio quality, or an REM concert and then you have bands who just get away with it because people recognise their songs and are “merry” it highlights the real quality.
And I don’t get the Billie Eyelash thing - nice background music in a cafe when you are an angst student. Oh god I’m old!
Supergrass yesterday were tight as a gnat’s arse. Superb. Sounded lean and hungry. Surprisingly so for a band that have just got back together to tour, with no intention of doing anything new.
Just catching up with Avalanches now - not bad in my living room but not really my missus’s cup of tea like. Would have been great to have been stood there, totally spangled. Some outstanding gurning visible in the crowd.
Looking forward to Macca. Voice isn’t want it was but still, it’s fucking Macca.
Think I’m too old for Billie Eilish too - watched it last night but was underwhelmed. But it’s not for blokes in their 40s, I guess.
Olivia Rodrigo came fast out of the blocks, she was fucking loving being there. I was underwhelmed by Noel Gallagher, despite him trotting out some of the classics.
It’s at this point in the proceedings I’m like right, I’m definitely gonna get a ticket for next year. I never fucking do.
I have no interest in Glastonbury. The idea of buying tickets before you ever know who is going to be playing certainly doesn't appeal to me.
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
1987 was my only time at Glastonbury, and much less regulated then*. Elvis Costello and New Order were the headliners, and both did great shows. New Order were outstanding with an Eighties laser show.
But a large part of enjoying a festival is seeing random bands that you have never heard of. You get to a stage early to see someone, and wind up becoming a fan of someone you have never heard of. I came away from that Glasto a fan of Robyn Hitchcock, The Gaye Bykers on Acid, The Mightly Lemondrops, Husker Du and Michelle Shocked, all great festival acts.
*we parked my 2CV in a field, put up the tent alongside, foraged in hedges for firewood, and there seemed no security checks, with lots of freelance retail. No one could leave early as not possible to move the cars until the tents were down. Not much abandoned like modern festivals as easy to chuck everything in the motor.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
I'm not sure that's true - FPTP does allow for radical Governments to be elected and even if the two main parties are basically the same (Butskellism anyone?) one was more dominant than the other in terms of seats though much less so in terms of votes.
FPTP reduces plurality - in a democracy, it's important (I believe) for as many voices to be represented and heard as possible. That applies both to Newham Council and to national Government. If you have a system where significant minorities of the electorate are simply not represented (whether Conservatives in Newham, Lib Dems in Wales or other examples) that must impact on the effectiveness and engagement of local and national democracy.
Many countries work well with coalition Government and I'm quite sure if we moved to STV in the UK we'd have a recognisable centre-right bloc of parties and a recognisable centre-left bloc with a few other parties not adhering to either bloc or moving between them but at least more and different strands of opinion would be represented and heard - in the current system not only are some voices unrepresented but even within parties the dominance of certain viewpoints means others are suppressed.
The outcome is people become politically "homeless" - that would be less likely under STV as smaller niche parties would exist which could co-operate on some issues but not on others.
I believe that's called concensus - a term some don't like but I think works well.
A term some of us like to see spelt correctly
So instead of focusing on the argument the best you can come up with a waspish comment about my spelling.
Not sure I agree. I think that the main advantge of FPTP is that it forces successful parties to be fairly broad coalitions and broadly centrist. Extremists get anihilated. Soemtimes that means that there is not much between our 2 main parties but that is ok and better than what we currently see in the US where the dualist system is sadly breaking down.
I'm not sure that's true - FPTP does allow for radical Governments to be elected and even if the two main parties are basically the same (Butskellism anyone?) one was more dominant than the other in terms of seats though much less so in terms of votes.
FPTP reduces plurality - in a democracy, it's important (I believe) for as many voices to be represented and heard as possible. That applies both to Newham Council and to national Government. If you have a system where significant minorities of the electorate are simply not represented (whether Conservatives in Newham, Lib Dems in Wales or other examples) that must impact on the effectiveness and engagement of local and national democracy.
Many countries work well with coalition Government and I'm quite sure if we moved to STV in the UK we'd have a recognisable centre-right bloc of parties and a recognisable centre-left bloc with a few other parties not adhering to either bloc or moving between them but at least more and different strands of opinion would be represented and heard - in the current system not only are some voices unrepresented but even within parties the dominance of certain viewpoints means others are suppressed.
The outcome is people become politically "homeless" - that would be less likely under STV as smaller niche parties would exist which could co-operate on some issues but not on others.
I believe that's called concensus - a term some don't like but I think works well.
New PM will understand where he's coming from. And in the meantime, he can do a reverse 45 on Boris - hold his fat feet to the fire for more of whatever UKR needs the most right now that UK can provide.
Personally would throw BoJo a boffo blowout of epic proportions.
Am listening to Roisin Murphy. And thinking wistfully of an old girlfriend. She was a Roisin before any bugger had heard of the name. Outside Gaeltacht.
Am listening to Roisin Murphy. And thinking wistfully of an old girlfriend. She was a Roisin before any bugger had heard of the name. Outside Gaeltacht.
Am listening to Roisin Murphy. And thinking wistfully of an old girlfriend. She was a Roisin before any bugger had heard of the name. Outside Gaeltacht.
Comments
But tomorrow I will be at Hyde Park to see The Eagles supported by Robert Plant and Alison Krauss.
Now that I really am looking forward to.
Please point out the “proper debate and referendum” prior to FPTP being introduced.
And no, they have not done it, not so far as I can see.
It’s actually very, very hard to get over 15% in a 5 or 6 party system.
Blaming the Lib Dems (or whoever) is simply saying that the 20% of the electorate who did *not* vote Lab/Con/PC in 2021 so not deserve representation in a supposedly PR system.
As I said at the beginning, the effective consequence in the Welsh context is to pretty much create a permanent block on the Tories from reaching power.
The fact is. The Tories don't win in Wales because they aren't popular. No amount of tinkering will change that. Only a change of attitude, leadership and policies will.
And your last point is irrelevant. The sheer quantity of SNP votes in Scotland would have made them the government under any imaginable system.
If the elected government can't change a voting system, then we'd still have Rotten Boroughs.
And if they can change it, why on earth would they do so to one which was worse for their chances?
When was FPTP “introduced”? Did they even have a full franchise then?
I’ve been once, 2000, and it is that big, and there’s so much going on, that even if you’re not fussed about what’s happening on the larger stages you’ll find something worth watching somewhere on site.
I really should go again. It is a fantastic experience. Shit if it pisses it down though. Friends have suffered that fate, sounds horrific. What puts me off really.
You seem to concede it is a gerrymander, but object to my original post where I called it such.
A democracy requires the rules to be fair for all players, this is designed to reward Labour and PC, punish the Tories, and keep out smaller parties.
I suspect it will also encourage nationalist opinion in Wales (because protest votes will not be able to go anywhere else), but that’s a different issue.
It is 15 (and in reality quite a bit less in effect), in a constituency.
Are you arguing the LD's haven't ever achieved that in say a Ceredigion/Brecon and Radnor constituency?
Cos they have.
Some geologists put the division line further north, closer to where the news folks do.
And, just to confuse things further, NAFTA doesn't include Greenland.
So, there are at least four possible definitions of "North America".
(Before I ran into the Stylebook, I would have put the division at the Panama Canal.)
Each region contains the population of approx 7 current Westminster seats. Which party apart from Lab/Con/PC has achieved that?
It’s actually very hard, as I know from following NZ PR very closely.
Observer
To me. The whole idea that we can't, as a nation, agree a standard voting system is one of the signs of our decline.
The various Council systems are baffling.
But I can't see this particular one as any more egregious than any other.
https://mobile.twitter.com/Liveuamap/status/1540445909208662016
There should be such rights but female bodily
autonomy (with caveats in middle and late pregnancy) isn't one of them.
Which of these is your view?
This is a 15% threshold, but forgetting the mechanics the plain effect is to keep Lab/PC in and the rest down or out.
It isn't the system I'd choose, no. But it is no worse than any other.
Observer Love will tear us apart.
My taste is… err…. eclectic. If we omit all the Swedish, Gaelic, French, Scots, Danish, Italian and Norwegian stuff, my Spotify listening today included: The Stranglers, Dinah Washington, Aretha Franklin, Bob Dylan, The Proclaimers, Run DMC, Prince, Bob Dylan, The Eagles, The Clash, Roberta Flack, Morecombe and Wise, The Muppets, Kate Bush, Elton John, Steve Miller Band, Susanne Vega, Billy Joel, Kenny Rodgers, Cat Stevens, The Dubliners, The Beautiful South, The Band, Deacon Blue, Eartha Kitt and Carly Simon. Missed a few.
Jeez. How the world changes.
The Eagles are hideously over-rated.
We will see the effect in 2026 I believe.
Now this is interesting. Below mini thread is two weeks old. It’s where Sunil - aw bless him - called PBs Psephology Eminence “lucky” for calling the last Opinium spot on - so I gave him todays poll outcome two weeks ago - again, spot on.
Sunil_Prasannan said:
« hide previous quotes
MoonRabbit said:
dixiedean said:
EPG said:
MoonRabbit said:
HYUFD said:
Johnson cuts the Labour lead to just 2% with Opinium tonight after winning his VONC last week.
Still yet another PB thread predicting his demise
https://twitter.com/OpiniumResearch/status/1535698379703037952?s=20&t=g5Q5K-mgRBs0Yp4BeQrdKQ
From 3% last time you are referring to? And admitting the 34 and 33 Tory % in last two polls from this firm have swing back built in that possibly might never happen if Johnson is still there splitting the party?
How more helpful and polite can I say this? 😆
What exactly have Opinium done to the headline figures?
They've got new methodology.
They call it building in swingback. They get the raw figures sort of in line with the 6 7 8’s everyone else reporting, and work under the bonnet on idea governments “always” get a certain swing back once elections are announced and campaigns underway, this firm reckon they can say know how much and adjust it into the figures their survey actually returned. I think the mainstream media are more grown up about this these days so you won’t see any silly “labour lead slashed to two” headlines from them like some posts here this evening.
I love this poll, and the fact it’s two a month, because it’s always so predictable for the better and smarter poll analysts (like I was spot on tonight) so I really feel if the headline figures for each party show a consistent shift in this one we can believe it’s going on.
I call it luck!
It’s actually easy Sunhil. The gaps never been more than 4, labour never more than 38, Tories never lower than the 33 last time that was 33 playing 36, and post vonc polls from other firms, though not many, have been static (let’s see what happens after two weeks) It was easy, and why this poll will be the one to quickly reveal the % for each party is on the move.
I’ll show you how easy it is by telling you the result of the next Opinium poll right here right now. Labour 37/38, Tories 34/33. And I’ll explain why. The post vonc narrative now building and will dominate next few weeks of a governing party split and at war, with awful impact on policies, will feed into that next poll, but it will be surprising if it shifts this methodology more than into gap of 3 or 4.
By all means keep this.
If you assume that 20% of the vote falls outside the big 3, as was the case in 2021, it’s effectively 13.3%.
Late for the sky.
A masterpiece.
FPTP reduces plurality - in a democracy, it's important (I believe) for as many voices to be represented and heard as possible. That applies both to Newham Council and to national Government. If you have a system where significant minorities of the electorate are simply not represented (whether Conservatives in Newham, Lib Dems in Wales or other examples) that must impact on the effectiveness and engagement of local and national democracy.
Many countries work well with coalition Government and I'm quite sure if we moved to STV in the UK we'd have a recognisable centre-right bloc of parties and a recognisable centre-left bloc with a few other parties not adhering to either bloc or moving between them but at least more and different strands of opinion would be represented and heard - in the current system not only are some voices unrepresented but even within parties the dominance of certain viewpoints means others are suppressed.
The outcome is people become politically "homeless" - that would be less likely under STV as smaller niche parties would exist which could co-operate on some issues but not on others.
I believe that's called concensus - a term some don't like but I think works well.
'using DNA as a verification, paternity for every embryo should be established and the male responsible obliged by law to support the woman and the child through the child's majority, including medical costs, living costs and education. In addition, the child should have a full share of the father's estate if and when the father dies. If women cannot decide whether or not to carry a child, fathers should not be able to decide whether of not to support the woman and child.'"
And now you know why the lateHugh Hefner was such a strong proponent of abortion.
When I was growing up decades ago (before Roe) boys in my rural area understood that, if we got a girl pregnant, we would have to marry her.
And that social rule was found in other places. Political scientist John J. DiIulio Jr. likes to tell the story of a boy in an Italian neighborhood being persuaded to do the right thing by the local Mafia boss. When the boy didn't come up with an engagement ring on his own, the boss called him in for a little chat -- and the boy showed up at the girl's home with a ring promptly. (The next day, if I recall correctly.)
Let that one sink in.
https://twitter.com/KevinASchofield/status/1540805931591663616/photo/1
But a large part of enjoying a festival is seeing random bands that you have never heard of. You get to a stage early to see someone, and wind up becoming a fan of someone you have never heard of. I came away from that Glasto a fan of Robyn Hitchcock, The Gaye Bykers on Acid, The Mightly Lemondrops, Husker Du and Michelle Shocked, all great festival acts.
*we parked my 2CV in a field, put up the tent alongside, foraged in hedges for firewood, and there seemed no security checks, with lots of freelance retail. No one could leave early as not possible to move the cars until the tents were down. Not much abandoned like modern festivals as easy to chuck everything in the motor.
At least you're playing to your strengths.
And they were totally stressed and jet lagged.
He wont have the attention, nor can afford, to keep it going much beyond a 2024 win.
Max is 2026 imho.
Reality is closing in on Boris Johnson | Sonia Purnell https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/25/reality-is-closing-in-on-boris-johnson-narcissist
Oh yeah?
New: Boris Johnson wants to lead Britain into the "mid-2030s"
Speaking in Kigali, he said: "At the moment I am thinking actively about the third term and what could happen then. But I will review that when I get to it.”
https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1540809987462758400
New PM will understand where he's coming from. And in the meantime, he can do a reverse 45 on Boris - hold his fat feet to the fire for more of whatever UKR needs the most right now that UK can provide.
Personally would throw BoJo a boffo blowout of epic proportions.
AND make him pay for it 3-times over. If not 4!
And thinking wistfully of an old girlfriend. She was a Roisin before any bugger had heard of the name. Outside Gaeltacht.
Would still bring average age down if he posts here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLTsNWNFFoA
Very Pavement
I have seen a few dinosaurs in my time. The Stones were old when I saw them in 82, but by 2018 were ancient. Still worth seeing though.
I fucking love him though.