If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
Just been announced; Kwasi Kwarteng not to stand again.
Seems a shame really. Kwarteng would surely have a good career ahead of him but maybe he does not fancy slumming it in opposition; possibly he feels too closely linked to Liz Truss with Britannia Unchained and all that. Spelthorne looks like a safe enough seat voting 50 percent blue since Magna Carta. We need someone to represent that crucial Eton and Cambridge demographic so rare amongst our rulers. Here is 30 seconds of Kwasi on University Challenge:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1h4VNFxpGM
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
Proving FPTP is inequitable.
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.
Reform UK are very pro PR.
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.
On the contrary, I think some things might change.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Clarification that 2015 was the "most disproportionate result" because Ukip got screwed rather than the Tories doing especially well.
Or put another way Labour were the only party further away in % of MPs from their % vote share in 2005 than in 2015. Libdems, UKIP, Conservatives, SNP and Greens MPs % all further from their % vote share in 2015 than in 2005.
This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
How exactly do you think we get lumbered with toxic numpties like Chope, sitting forever in his safe seat, now?
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
Just been announced; Kwasi Kwarteng not to stand again.
Seems a shame really. Kwarteng would surely have a good career ahead of him but maybe he does not fancy slumming it in opposition; possibly he feels too closely linked to Liz Truss with Britannia Unchained and all that. Spelthorne looks like a safe enough seat voting 50 percent blue since Magna Carta. We need someone to represent that crucial Eton and Cambridge demographic so rare amongst our rulers. Here is 30 seconds of Kwasi on University Challenge:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1h4VNFxpGM
ETA oh yes, and he is Black.
Kwasi Kwarteng could become a quiz question on shortest Office Holders in The Treasury.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.
I disagree. Stop the War is set on undermining the UK in perpetuity. The current crop of GOP politicians are spineless and self-interested but I don’t hold the view that Trump will do irreparable harm to the West.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
And Bitcoin, don't forget the Bitcoin.
The bitter joke, under Yeltsin was "Old people remember - under Stalin, there was food and there was order. What do they want? Lots of food and lots of order."
This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
How exactly do you think we get lumbered with toxic numpties like Chope, sitting forever in his safe seat, now?
Party controlled lists are just a response to the removal of "safe seats". They are worse than FPTP, in any analysis.
'Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics'
Just been announced; Kwasi Kwarteng not to stand again.
Seems a shame really. Kwarteng would surely have a good career ahead of him but maybe he does not fancy slumming it in opposition; possibly he feels too closely linked to Liz Truss with Britannia Unchained and all that. Spelthorne looks like a safe enough seat voting 50 percent blue since Magna Carta. We need someone to represent that crucial Eton and Cambridge demographic so rare amongst our rulers. Here is 30 seconds of Kwasi on University Challenge:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1h4VNFxpGM
ETA oh yes, and he is Black.
It's a slightly less safe seat than Mid Bedfordshire was.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
'Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics'
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
Proving FPTP is inequitable.
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.
I disagree. Con/UKIP would have been fine by me in 2017. It wouldn't have represented me, but it represented the majority, so happy days.
That's the problem with coalitions though, isn't it. "The majority" could equally have been center-right Tories and center-left Labour rather than a "Con/UKIP" pairing. That's the problem; you need *a lot* more fragmentation to make PR work like that.
Just been announced; Kwasi Kwarteng not to stand again.
Seems a shame really. Kwarteng would surely have a good career ahead of him but maybe he does not fancy slumming it in opposition; possibly he feels too closely linked to Liz Truss with Britannia Unchained and all that. Spelthorne looks like a safe enough seat voting 50 percent blue since Magna Carta. We need someone to represent that crucial Eton and Cambridge demographic so rare amongst our rulers. Here is 30 seconds of Kwasi on University Challenge:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1h4VNFxpGM
ETA oh yes, and he is Black.
It's a shame he's going, but perfectly understandable.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
Clarification that 2015 was the "most disproportionate result" because Ukip got screwed rather than the Tories doing especially well.
Or put another way Labour were the only party further away in % of MPs from their % vote share in 2005 than in 2015. Libdems, UKIP, Conservatives, SNP and Greens MPs % all further from their % vote share in 2015 than in 2005.
The point is, the Electoral Reform society are being incredibly disingenuous when they write:
In 2015, First Past the Post gave us the most disproportionate election to date with a majority government secured with under 37 percent of the vote share.
The "most disproportionate result" statement has little to do with the Tories winning a (slim) majority with 37% of the vote.
35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.
Not all PBers were born before 1992 ... Yes, the indignation at Westminster having required Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to suffer representative compromise but threatened with exactly the same is quite something.
Surely some genius has suggested a PR system for England/UK would kill (insert political bogey man of choice) stone dead?
They could have two Prime Ministers of equal status. Maybe Mr Sunak and Mr Farage?
I liked this snark from Rory Carroll of the Graun in its feed yesterday:
'The posts are indeed joint, with equal authority, but the DUP brandished “first minister” as a talisman and reminder that it was the bigger party. Secure in supremacy, it rejected an offer to rename the posts joint first minister.
With Sinn Fein now revelling in having Northern Ireland’s first nationalist first minister Sir Jeffrey Donaldson performed a smooth, blink-and-you-miss-it U-turn on BBC Radio Ulster on Monday when he referred to his party colleague Emma Little-Pengelly as “joint first minister”.'
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
El Salvador did have a horrific gang problem, to the point where (as in Haiti, parts of Mexico, Colombia and apparently much of Ecuador) it was close to supplanting civic government. Bukele's response was definitely going to be popular. I would have voted for him.
However, the UK is not El Salvador, and despite the best efforts of the Tories to undermine rule of law, we are still a functioning civil society. Maybe Singapore or Saudi are better examples if you wanted to look at that authoritarian road?
TBH I think our culture holds an individualistic streak that is inimical to true authoritarianism.
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
Proving FPTP is inequitable.
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.
I disagree. Con/UKIP would have been fine by me in 2017. It wouldn't have represented me, but it represented the majority, so happy days.
That's the problem with coalitions though, isn't it. "The majority" could equally have been center-right Tories and center-left Labour rather than a "Con/UKIP" pairing. That's the problem; you need *a lot* more fragmentation to make PR work like that.
The thing about FPTP vs PR is the way it changes voter behaviour. Many people report that if it were not for FPTP they would vote for another party. FPTP artificially inflates the support for the "two main" parties by forcing the "two horse race" narrative at a national level. We currently do not know what party support would look like under PR - it certainly wouldn't look like Labour polling at 40+%, for example. It's entirely possible that under PR different parties would become the "main parties", including Reform or the Greens.
Edit: this example from a left wing tax reform forum (the first bit of polling that compares how people would vote in FPTP vs PR that comes up from a quick google search) shows that in part:
'Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics'
You're getting old, lad.
Nothing about making Network South East and Transpennine run to time?
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
Just been announced; Kwasi Kwarteng not to stand again.
Seems a shame really. Kwarteng would surely have a good career ahead of him but maybe he does not fancy slumming it in opposition; possibly he feels too closely linked to Liz Truss with Britannia Unchained and all that. Spelthorne looks like a safe enough seat voting 50 percent blue since Magna Carta. We need someone to represent that crucial Eton and Cambridge demographic so rare amongst our rulers. Here is 30 seconds of Kwasi on University Challenge:- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1h4VNFxpGM
ETA oh yes, and he is Black.
It's a shame he's going, but perfectly understandable.
It is understandable that Kwasi is going but he is perhaps a better exemplar of his wing of the party than Liz Truss. It is interesting to wonder what would have happened if Truss and Kwarteng had had each other's job in 2022. They were right that Britain does need to target economic growth.
If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?
No chance.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.
Just in case though @Peter_the_Punter can you let us know your other policies? Just hedging my bets as to whether I should support you or not in the uprising.
Second on my list would be doing something about this business of pineapple toppings on pizza.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.
Interestingly maybe, I consider them the worst government in my lifetime.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
So, now you think the stats are fake?
Comical
You would love a bit of Brezhnev or Mugabe. The price authoritarians always pay is they soon lose touch with reality and start to believe their own bullshit.
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
Proving FPTP is inequitable.
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.
I disagree. Con/UKIP would have been fine by me in 2017. It wouldn't have represented me, but it represented the majority, so happy days.
That's the problem with coalitions though, isn't it. "The majority" could equally have been center-right Tories and center-left Labour rather than a "Con/UKIP" pairing. That's the problem; you need *a lot* more fragmentation to make PR work like that.
The thing about FPTP vs PR is the way it changes voter behaviour. Many people report that if it were not for FPTP they would vote for another party. FPTP artificially inflates the support for the "two main" parties by forcing the "two horse race" narrative at a national level. We currently do not know what party support would look like under PR - it certainly wouldn't look like Labour polling at 40+%, for example. It's entirely possible that under PR different parties would become the "main parties", including Reform or the Greens.
Edit: this example from a left wing tax reform forum (the first bit of polling that compares how people would vote in FPTP vs PR that comes up from a quick google search) shows that in part:
That's exactly my point - you need a great deal more fragmentation. You also need incentives for that fragmentation to happen (for instance, it would be interesting to see how many incumbent MPs stick to nanny for fear of worse in these circumstances, and how long it takes to shake it all out).
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
Proving FPTP is inequitable.
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.
I disagree. Con/UKIP would have been fine by me in 2017. It wouldn't have represented me, but it represented the majority, so happy days.
That's the problem with coalitions though, isn't it. "The majority" could equally have been center-right Tories and center-left Labour rather than a "Con/UKIP" pairing. That's the problem; you need *a lot* more fragmentation to make PR work like that.
The thing about FPTP vs PR is the way it changes voter behaviour. Many people report that if it were not for FPTP they would vote for another party. FPTP artificially inflates the support for the "two main" parties by forcing the "two horse race" narrative at a national level. We currently do not know what party support would look like under PR - it certainly wouldn't look like Labour polling at 40+%, for example. It's entirely possible that under PR different parties would become the "main parties", including Reform or the Greens.
Edit: this example from a left wing tax reform forum (the first bit of polling that compares how people would vote in FPTP vs PR that comes up from a quick google search) shows that in part:
That's exactly my point - you need a great deal more fragmentation. You also need incentives for that fragmentation to happen (for instance, it would be interesting to see how many incumbent MPs stick to nanny for fear of worse in these circumstances, and how long it takes to shake it all out).
Under PR, for example, I would imagine that more Tories would have switched parties by now to a more centre-right party, as would many left wing Labour MPs to a more left wing party. FPTP is the thing propping up these two very unpopular political parties because, we keep getting told, they are our only choices.
On PR, it's a Heart v Head thing for me. I love FPTP for its drama and the possibility it provides for brutal sweeping change, "were you up for Portillo etc", but I don't think it fosters good government or high calibre politics in general, eg those jobbing MPs in safe seats, and it fails on the core point of representation. Your vote means little in practical terms if you're not in a marginal, conversely if you do happen to be in the battleground your vote (and hence your views) assume a disproportionate importance.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
In Peru, Fujimori saw off the Shining Path. Vladimiro Lenin Ilich Montesinos Torres* (in charge of the security operations) created a counter insurgency - literally. Mao's Little Red Book turned against the Maoists. They started a whole seres of uprisings *against* the Shining Path.
It was really quiet after that. Corpses rot quite quietly.
This kind of shit can work. Doesn't make it desirable.
*His parents were hard core Left. Hence the name. Good plan, that.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
So, now you think the stats are fake?
Comical
You would love a bit of Brezhnev or Mugabe. The price authoritarians always pay is they soon lose touch with reality and start to believe their own bullshit.
Again, no attempt to argue the facts
First you don't believe it. Then when you are shown the stats, you say they lie. Then, when you realise the stats are genuine, you dribble on about something else entirely, like a six year old. What is the point in you being here?
35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.
Interestingly maybe, I consider them the worst government in my lifetime.
They sure put a lot of crappy things in motion. Thank goodness the runaway father of a botched Brexit, promoter of the career of Boris Johnson and the PM who gave a peerage to Michelle Mone is now nowhere to be seen.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
So, now you think the stats are fake?
Comical
You would love a bit of Brezhnev or Mugabe. The price authoritarians always pay is they soon lose touch with reality and start to believe their own bullshit.
Again, no attempt to argue the facts
First you don't believe it. Then when you are shown the stats, you say they lie. Then, when you realise the stats are genuine, you dribble on about something else entirely, like a six year old. What is the point in you being here?
When SeanT loses an argument he always goes for the ad hom. You can set your watch by it.
It's sad to see him advocating for the populist strong men, though. It's as if the C20 never happened.
"...Jeff Walker said that Ridley Scott filmed three endings:
1) Rick Deckard turns out to be a replicant. 2) Deckard turns out metaphorically to be a replicant, in which he said that he has become like Roy Batty and Rachael and they all shoot off together in one of the Spinners at 250 mph. 3) Or he’s not a replicant and he kills Roy Batty.
So he’ll choose one of the three endings like Apocalypse Now or else let the public choose their own like Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
He will get it right. I have no doubt that he will get it right. Any one of the three possibilities will be satisfactory. I’ve talked to writer friends of mine who’ve read the novel and they hope that it doesn’t turn out that he is literally a replicant because God knows that’s back to The Stepford Wives and Westworld and all that stuff, and I would kind of like to see him not literally be a replicant. I would like to have him metaphorically be a replicant because that shows that any one of us could be dehumanized in the effort of fighting evil..."
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
In Peru, Fujimori saw off the Shining Path. Vladimiro Lenin Ilich Montesinos Torres* (in charge of the security operations) created a counter insurgency - literally. Mao's Little Red Book turned against the Maoists. They started a whole seres of uprisings *against* the Shining Path.
It was really quiet after that. Corpses rot quite quietly.
This kind of shit can work. Doesn't make it desirable.
*His parents were hard core Left. Hence the name. Good plan, that.
One of the many fascinating things about Bukele is that he was, until fairly recently, considered a centrist. A Lib Dem
Now this
It's like "Sir" Ed Davey reaching office then suddenly turning into a sort of British Mussolini, but much more successful and detailed
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
So, now you think the stats are fake?
Comical
You would love a bit of Brezhnev or Mugabe. The price authoritarians always pay is they soon lose touch with reality and start to believe their own bullshit.
Again, no attempt to argue the facts
First you don't believe it. Then when you are shown the stats, you say they lie. Then, when you realise the stats are genuine, you dribble on about something else entirely, like a six year old. What is the point in you being here?
When SeanT loses an argument he always goes for the ad hom. You can set your watch by it.
It's sad to see him advocating for the populist strong men, though. It's as if the C20 never happened.
Who is this SeanT character? I do not see him here
What I see is @Jonathan who briskly and painfully lost an argument, and now mewls and bleats
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
In Peru, Fujimori saw off the Shining Path. Vladimiro Lenin Ilich Montesinos Torres* (in charge of the security operations) created a counter insurgency - literally. Mao's Little Red Book turned against the Maoists. They started a whole seres of uprisings *against* the Shining Path.
It was really quiet after that. Corpses rot quite quietly.
This kind of shit can work. Doesn't make it desirable.
*His parents were hard core Left. Hence the name. Good plan, that.
One of the many fascinating things about Bukele is that he was, until fairly recently, considered a centrist. A Lib Dem
Now this
It's like "Sir" Ed Davey reaching office then sudden;y turning into a sort of British Mussolini, but much more successful and detailed
"Liberal" dictators were not rare in Central/South America, back in the day. Indeed the original Independence Movement was French Revolution inspired (in part).
If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?
No chance.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.
Just in case though @Peter_the_Punter can you let us know your other policies? Just hedging my bets as to whether I should support you or not in the uprising.
Second on my list would be doing something about this business of pineapple toppings on pizza.
SKS will run on "hope and change". Never heard that before!
Voters are going to have to ‘hope’ he doesn’t ‘change’ his mind on everything once he’s won as he has on everything so far since becoming Labour leader?
If I were ruler for a day, the first thing I would change would be the voting system.
FPTP is responsible for many ills, but sadly I have to agree with Mike. Ain't gonna change.
If you were ruler for a day Peter would you change the voting system so you became ruler for life and became our beloved benign dictator?
No chance.
Rule this lot? You gotta be kidding.
Just in case though @Peter_the_Punter can you let us know your other policies? Just hedging my bets as to whether I should support you or not in the uprising.
Second on my list would be doing something about this business of pineapple toppings on pizza.
Does that help?
How dare the Premier ignore my invitations? He'll have to go So, too, the bunch he luncheons with It's second on my list of things to do
Clarification that 2015 was the "most disproportionate result" because Ukip got screwed rather than the Tories doing especially well.
Or put another way Labour were the only party further away in % of MPs from their % vote share in 2005 than in 2015. Libdems, UKIP, Conservatives, SNP and Greens MPs % all further from their % vote share in 2015 than in 2005.
The point is, the Electoral Reform society are being incredibly disingenuous when they write:
In 2015, First Past the Post gave us the most disproportionate election to date with a majority government secured with under 37 percent of the vote share.
The "most disproportionate result" statement has little to do with the Tories winning a (slim) majority with 37% of the vote.
Disingenuous to what end? Seems just badly written, should have put the two true statements in 2 different sentences. I mean isn't their cause to promote PR? eg here is the ERS in 2005:
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
Yes, it's not a free lunch - and there's a lot of collateral damage, not least of which to freedom and justice - but people still will go for it.
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
Ukraine to be sacrificed to help his election chances . The GOP are spineless traitorous scum and any politician in the UK supporting Trump is the same .
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Like the Scottish system but more constituency rather than list heavy
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
It should be the candidate who got the largest share of the vote, or most votes, in their constituency, that would remove the problem I think
35:32:22. I was going to make a joke about "the closest we've had to a three-way in Parliament" but I decided it was too early.
The chronic priapism demonstrated by some members (ha) in recent times suggests that it’s never too early for a parliamentary three-way.
I’d say more a spit roast with the hapless LDs between the hulking brutes of Lab & Cons.
Since I’ve seen quite a few PBer describe the coalition years as the best government of their adult lives I’m surprised there aren’t more fans of the messy but representative compromises that PR would likely bring.
Not all PBers were born before 1992 ... Yes, the indignation at Westminster having required Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont to suffer representative compromise but threatened with exactly the same is quite something.
Surely some genius has suggested a PR system for England/UK would kill (insert political bogey man of choice) stone dead?
Well with LDs down to 1 member of the Senedd, and only 4 in the Scottish Parliament, it might finish off the LDs.
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Like the Scottish system but more constituency rather than list heavy
And without the convoluted second vote/list thing. I think this is his the Germans/Danes do it? MMR
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Like the Scottish system but more constituency rather than list heavy
And without the convoluted second vote/list thing. I think this is his the Germans/Danes do it? MMR
In Germany you have 2 votes, 1st for the local candidate, 2nd for the party. It's also PR, which this wouldn't be.
I think maybe only Hungary currently has something like this
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all then staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.
I disagree. Stop the War is set on undermining the UK in perpetuity. The current crop of GOP politicians are spineless and self-interested but I don’t hold the view that Trump will do irreparable harm to the West.
You may have a "view" that he won't be a disaster but your view is worth very little. Neither is mine that he WILL be a disaster. Obviously I prefer my view (I think there's far more evidence for it) but these various views (whereby people try and predict what Trump2 will mean in practice) are really not the point.
It's about risk, the risk that comes with Donald Trump back in the WH. The man is driven 100% by spite, ego, pettiness, all is personal, it's about him and nothing else, therefore one can't predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will translate to in real world impact. It's about risk and the risk is sky high.
Plus it's a skewed risk. The chance of the benign extreme (he turns out to be fabulous, a model of calm competence and moral fibre) is let's face it zero. Whereas the chance of the malign extreme (he absolutely trashes the place) is quite high. That's the calculus and there's only one rational reaction to it - pass.
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
How about the nationwide reps are just the losing constituency candidates who got closest to the winning candidate/highest vote share?
No, the most disproportionate election to date was the solid majority Tony Blair won in 2005 with only 35% of the vote.
Proving FPTP is inequitable.
It probably also suggests that the Electoral Reform Society isn't entirely political neutral. I think there are arguments for and against first past the post, but it amuses me that it tends to be people on the Left of politics who are most keen on changing the system. They would be horrified if we did go to PR and it produced a result they really didn't like.
Reform UK are very pro PR.
PR in the UK will most likely enable the populist right. Would make a Faragist party truly viable and mean the Tories could not govern without it. A seriously bad idea.
With PR the Tories almost certainly would always need Reform to form a government, or the LDs, or maybe even both
Which is as it should be. They appear to believe they have a divine right to be in government; they haven't.
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
What's wrong with a guaranteed-ish seat for the party leader(s)? Sounds like a positive to me, compared to the current system.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
Having PR would not turn us into Israel. That is a really feeble argument.
I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.
FWIW I'm not upset. He's an old man, lived in luxury all his life and will be receiving the best care lots of money can provide. I'm more upset for Fred Bloggs who has just found out his cancer is terminal, but wouldn't have been if it had been diagnosed a year ago, when he first tried to get medical attention. Sadly the GP appointments were always full, and then the nurse practitioner thought it was IBS and so he went home and manned up...
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.
I disagree. Stop the War is set on undermining the UK in perpetuity. The current crop of GOP politicians are spineless and self-interested but I don’t hold the view that Trump will do irreparable harm to the West.
You may have a "view" that he won't be a disaster but your view is worth very little. Neither is mine that he WILL be a disaster. Obviously I prefer my view (I think there's far more evidence for it) but these various views (whereby people try and predict what Trump2 will mean in practice) are really not the point.
It's about risk, the risk that comes with Donald Trump back in the WH. The man is driven 100% by spite, ego, pettiness, all is personal, it's about him and nothing else, therefore one can't predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will translate to in real world impact. It's about risk and the risk is sky high.
Plus it's a skewed risk. The chance of the benign extreme (he turns out to be fabulous, a model of calm competence and moral fibre) is let's face it zero. Whereas the chance of the malign extreme (he absolutely trashes the place) is quite high. That's the calculus and there's only one rational reaction to it - pass.
I would give the Conservatives a miraculous victory in this year's general election in exchange for the Democrats winning in November in a heartbeat, if offered such a deal by the devil.
This is one of the few areas where as I've got older I've changed my mind and become more Conservative.
I used to love PR, I'm now opposed. Too much power would go to those who make candidate lists. I don't love coalition govt either - hard for people to know what they are voting for.
How exactly do you think we get lumbered with toxic numpties like Chope, sitting forever in his safe seat, now?
Party controlled lists are just a response to the removal of "safe seats". They are worse than FPTP, in any analysis.
I don't see anyone proposing a party-controlled list?
I see people trying to argue against a fairer voting system using a flawed argument, that entirely overlooks that very many of our current lawmakers were effectively chosen by a handful of ideolgically driven usually-oldies sitting behind closed doors in a selection committee. Or, at best, by a vote of mostly elderly members after a closed meeting.
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
It should be the candidate who got the largest share of the vote, or most votes, in their constituency, that would remove the problem I think
The Danish system is seats in proportion to lists, but allows parties to let voters decide who on the list gets the seats. So if Labour had X votes giving 20 seats, the people voting for them would decide if those were 20 left-wingers, 20 centrists or a mixture. Votes for the list or individual candidates then all count to determine the party share X. But parties are allowed to load the dice by giving generic votes for "the list" to go first to the folk at the top of the list. Big parties generally do that, to ensure the potential Ministers get in. Small parties give everyone equal billing, as they want to have a range of people to pull in the votes.
If you want a truly proportional electoral system, look no further than Israel, and its outcome of governments that are in hock to minority extremists in permanently unstable coalitions, the consequences of which we are seeing played out before us in real time.
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
I think it is an error to blame Israel's woes on its electoral system. The problem is the very divided nature of Israeli society, between liberal Tel Aviv and the rest of the country, the settlers and those living in Israel, many religious differences (orthodox / liberal, Ashkenazim / Sephardim), the Arab minority, the recent Russian immigrants. FPTP would produce just as messy a parliament, perhaps more so given the geographic concentration of different groups.
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
I don't buy your assertions at all, because they amount to no more than speculation which you dress up as fact. What is a fact is the form of successive governments that Israel has been saddled with, and that their extreme highly proportional electoral system has facilitated that. What it produces is a myriad of tiny parties, all with their own parliamentary representation and with no incentive to compromise with anyone else in order to secure that representation. Basically government by herding self-interested extremist cats.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
It should be the candidate who got the largest share of the vote, or most votes, in their constituency, that would remove the problem I think
The Danish system is seats in proportion to lists, but allows parties to let voters decide who on the list gets the seats. So if Labour had X votes giving 20 seats, the people voting for them would decide if those were 20 left-wingers, 20 centrists or a mixture. Votes for the list or individual candidates then all count to determine the party share X. But parties are allowed to load the dice by giving generic votes for "the list" to go first to the folk at the top of the list. Big parties generally do that, to ensure the potential Ministers get in. Small parties give everyone equal billing, as they want to have a range of people to pull in the votes.
Sounds sensible, Nick, so the chances of it being implemented here must be next door to zero.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
I am under observation but blood pressure is good and I have an x ray at 12.30 before being discharged
I feel ok but have to take it easy for the next 6 weeks
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
You are almost always better off out of the plague pit that is a hospital. Pacemaker fitting, while not trivial, is certainly routine and better off home for Big_G.
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
As against PB-ers, with their fascinating anecdotes about the d'Hondt system, and the unreliability of Scottish subsamples?
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
What's wrong with a guaranteed-ish seat for the party leader(s)? Sounds like a positive to me, compared to the current system.
Simpler to just put the leadership into the House of Lords.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
I am under observation but blood pressure is good and I have an x ray at 12.30 before being discharged
I feel ok but have to take it easy for the next 6 weeks
No running marathons for you! Take it easy and relax.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Populist strongmen and authoritarian regimes only create the illusion of getting the job done. No troubling reality or dealing with messy human nature for these characters. And if someone dares mention something is not quite right, brutally suppress them.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
The murder rate in El Salvador, under Bukele, has gone from a peak of 106 per 100,000, to 2.4 last year, making 2023 the ‘safest year in El Salvador’s history.' It is down 94%
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
You would have been at home in the Soviet Union. The latest tractor stats are very encouraging.
In Peru, Fujimori saw off the Shining Path. Vladimiro Lenin Ilich Montesinos Torres* (in charge of the security operations) created a counter insurgency - literally. Mao's Little Red Book turned against the Maoists. They started a whole seres of uprisings *against* the Shining Path.
It was really quiet after that. Corpses rot quite quietly.
This kind of shit can work. Doesn't make it desirable.
*His parents were hard core Left. Hence the name. Good plan, that.
One of the many fascinating things about Bukele is that he was, until fairly recently, considered a centrist. A Lib Dem
Now this
It's like "Sir" Ed Davey reaching office then suddenly turning into a sort of British Mussolini, but much more successful and detailed
I can absolutely see this. The jutting jaw, the sudden appearance of medals on his anorak; hat with a large feather.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
'Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics'
Lessons were well understood I’d say; why on Earth would either Cons or Labour press to change a system that is so clearly tipped in their favour?
The public are suspicious of electoral reform in any case. FPTP is the devil we know.
1997 says hello.
Both major parties would see it in terms of empowering the extremes. Reform would enter Parliament in a sizeable way, and the Greens would become Hard Left Labour and take a similar slice.
On the plus side, it would probably abolish the Lib Dems, so not all bad.
Yes, they'd probably split, I guess (in a very amicable LD kind of way). Orange-bookers combining with some sane, liberal Tories (if there are any left) and the more social democratic faction maybe joining with some from Labour on the more liberal side. Both LD parties would find it easy enough to work together in coalition and probably, respectively, with Conservative and Labour. If it happened now, then the liberal-centre-right group could become a major party with sane Tories. Liberal centre-left probably more minor assuming Starmerist Labour stayed fairly whole except for shedding a few on the left. My natural instinct is for LD, but the breakup would be a price worth paying for voting reform.
We have Dutch friends and it's fascinating talking to them around (Dutch) election time. Weighing up the detailed policies of two or three parties that they actually like and ultimately choosing the one that most closely aligns to their priorities, rather than just voting for B because they're really fed up with A.
ETA: Or the post PR landscape might look quite differnt to the above, who knows? And we'll probably, unfortunately, never get to find out because of the vested interest of winners under FPTF in keeping FPTP
Yes, totally agree. I had a similar experience in Switzerland, where direct democracy means referenda every 3 months on diverse issues. I knew lots of Swiss couples who would set aside an evening each quarter to go through the arguments and decide what they favoured on each topic. Who had proposed the idea and whether they were left or right was secondary.
I bet those couples were fun at dinner parties.
As against PB-ers, with their fascinating anecdotes about the d'Hondt system, and the unreliability of Scottish subsamples?
Republicans are absurdly overrepresented on pb.com.
Re PR etc, and as someone mentioned UKIP in 2015, I’ll repost my idea for a fairer make up of the HofC
600 constituency MPs 50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Party list system? So the person at the head of each national list will be, essentially, impossible to remove?
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
And that don't actually represent *anyone* but their Party's interests? I do not approve of this system.
Given the behaviour of the Republicans in Congress, the widespread support for a Trump presidency among Tory MPs and other prominent Tories is becoming increasingly . It is now clear that Trump and the GOP are set on betraying Ukraine and, in doing so, threatening fundamental UK security and economic interests. I find the lack of scrutiny around this astonishing. Backing Trump is no better than backing Stop the War.
Actually it's much worse than Stop the War. They may be misguided but at least are following some kind of principle. The Trumpers are acting out of pure cynicism.
I disagree. Stop the War is set on undermining the UK in perpetuity. The current crop of GOP politicians are spineless and self-interested but I don’t hold the view that Trump will do irreparable harm to the West.
You may have a "view" that he won't be a disaster but your view is worth very little. Neither is mine that he WILL be a disaster. Obviously I prefer my view (I think there's far more evidence for it) but these various views (whereby people try and predict what Trump2 will mean in practice) are really not the point.
It's about risk, the risk that comes with Donald Trump back in the WH. The man is driven 100% by spite, ego, pettiness, all is personal, it's about him and nothing else, therefore one can't predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will translate to in real world impact. It's about risk and the risk is sky high.
Plus it's a skewed risk. The chance of the benign extreme (he turns out to be fabulous, a model of calm competence and moral fibre) is let's face it zero. Whereas the chance of the malign extreme (he absolutely trashes the place) is quite high. That's the calculus and there's only one rational reaction to it - pass.
I would give the Conservatives a miraculous victory in this year's general election in exchange for the Democrats winning in November in a heartbeat, if offered such a deal by the devil.
Gosh that's a devil of a choice. I'm so looking forward to a Labour win at last, meaning I'd need much longer than a heartbeat, I'd need an agonized 48 hours straight, no sleep, not eating, probably developing a rash and a psychosomatic stomach ache, but yes I'd probably end up where you are.
Fortunately my betting head says Labour landslide AND Trump loses. Head and heart are aligned on 2024's Big Two political events.
“I wish we had given James [Lankford] the benefit of the doubt to take a look at the text before we started speaking our opposition,” Ernst said...
Ernst continues: “But with that being said, it’s out there now, it’s already influenced the public and so we have to take that into consideration as we move forward.”
*In other words: it's already been attacked by propagandists on TV so we can't support it..
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
I am under observation but blood pressure is good and I have an x ray at 12.30 before being discharged
I feel ok but have to take it easy for the next 6 weeks
Sounds like excellent news. Hope it keeps going well.
'Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics'
You're getting old, lad.
{Alfredo Stroessner has entered the chat}
As has Leon.
PJ O'Rourke's visit to Paraguay just after the coup against Stroessner comes to mind.
I tell you who would win in the UK - that guy in El Salvador who just won with 85% of a democratic vote
Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics - and then he actually delivers that
This would win in every society, day in day out
The sad thing is that populist strongman who gets stuff done beats liberal due process, vetted as a good in and of itself, that does not.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
Bukele of El Salvador has proved that it works. He will inevitably be copied - just wait. It will come to the rich west in the end (ins'allah)
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
If you're drawing parallels between a fairly stable western democracy, and a South American country run by drug cartels and gangs, then you're clearly hoping for a societal collapse to prove you right.
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
Being somewhere like Phnom Penh - which is so much poorer than western Europe or the USA - sadly points up how fast the west is declining, relatively, despite western wealth
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
Had my pacemaker operation seamlessly this morning. Doctor seems happy so can go home at 1.00pm.
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
Whilst I am pleased that it appears to have worked, a 1pm discharge seems very rapid. Are you OK?
I am under observation but blood pressure is good and I have an x ray at 12.30 before being discharged
I feel ok but have to take it easy for the next 6 weeks
Comments
There are pros and cons of pretty well every form of electoral system. There is certainly a case for change in the UK, but there is also a counter case. By failing to acknowledge the pros and exaggerating the cons of the current one for the UK, the grandly titled "Electoral Reform Society" confirms once again that it can never be regarded as an unbiased actor in debates over electoral reform, so its reports should be read as partisan pleading by an organisation determined always to present its agenda in the best possible light.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1h4VNFxpGM
ETA oh yes, and he is Black.
And there are far many more people who'd vote for the former than the latter- because many more people are affected by the former and they don't have the luxury of the same sensitivities when their lives are blighted by it.
The key point here: results matter.
Whoever fixes things and gets the job done most effectively, wins.
That one came true....
'Someone who promises to reduce crime to zero, no more graffiti, no litter, no machetes, no fly tipping, no invading boats, no football hooligans, no loudspeakers on buses, none of that shit, just a nice calm orderly society, and people having lovely picnics'
You're getting old, lad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26i7cDZtZRc
20 minutes of Times Wireless soft-soaping LotO.
To actually get the job done, you are far better off in a Liberal democracy.
Here are some feminists protesting his "dictatorship"
https://x.com/malayerbacom/status/1754668937332052398?s=20
lol. What are they protesting? The fact their sons are no longer murdered? The collapse in the number of rapes? Bring back the endless rape gangs! It makes as much sense as Queers for Palestine
He won with 87% of the vote. Quite incredible
I also note that Israel has a particular form of PR. They have a closed list system with a low electoral threshold. An Israel using STV would produce a different result.
In 2015, First Past the Post gave us the most disproportionate election to date with a majority government secured with under 37 percent of the vote share.
The "most disproportionate result" statement has little to do with the Tories winning a (slim) majority with 37% of the vote.
I liked this snark from Rory Carroll of the Graun in its feed yesterday:
'The posts are indeed joint, with equal authority, but the DUP brandished “first minister” as a talisman and reminder that it was the bigger party. Secure in supremacy, it rejected an offer to rename the posts joint first minister.
With Sinn Fein now revelling in having Northern Ireland’s first nationalist first minister Sir Jeffrey Donaldson performed a smooth, blink-and-you-miss-it U-turn on BBC Radio Ulster on Monday when he referred to his party colleague Emma Little-Pengelly as “joint first minister”.'
The rest of it is at 1109 in this
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/feb/05/rishi-sunak-nhs-northern-ireland-dup-stormont-uk-politics-live?page=with:block-65c0c1a98f08412dd4e9a00e&filterKeyEvents=false#liveblog-navigation
However, the UK is not El Salvador, and despite the best efforts of the Tories to undermine rule of law, we are still a functioning civil society. Maybe Singapore or Saudi are better examples if you wanted to look at that authoritarian road?
TBH I think our culture holds an individualistic streak that is inimical to true authoritarianism.
Edit: this example from a left wing tax reform forum (the first bit of polling that compares how people would vote in FPTP vs PR that comes up from a quick google search) shows that in part:
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/05/03/would-pr-change-who-you-voted-for-tomorrow/
It has gone from one of the most dangerous countries in the world, to one of the safest in Latin America. And the same has happened to robberies, rapes, shootings, burglaries, gang membership, and so on
So, he has actually got the job done, and you are talking bollocks
Does that help?
Comical
1. Every day we would be the first day of spring. (March 21st).
2. Every heart would have a new song to sing. (Replace the National Anthem with Land of My Fathers).
3. Every man would be as free as a bird. (Let out all the prisoners. Allow all the boats).
4. Every voice would be a voice to be heard. (Loud speaker mode on phones obligatory on all buses).
5. Every head would be held up high. (Bring back capital punishment. Mass executions. Heads on spikes on London Bridge).
That's just the first 100 days.
It was really quiet after that. Corpses rot quite quietly.
This kind of shit can work. Doesn't make it desirable.
*His parents were hard core Left. Hence the name. Good plan, that.
First you don't believe it. Then when you are shown the stats, you say they lie. Then, when you realise the stats are genuine, you dribble on about something else entirely, like a six year old. What is the point in you being here?
i suspect 3. will limit your popularity but I'd love to see you go for it anyway.
It's sad to see him advocating for the populist strong men, though. It's as if the C20 never happened.
1) Rick Deckard turns out to be a replicant.
2) Deckard turns out metaphorically to be a replicant, in which he said that he has become like Roy Batty and Rachael and they all shoot off together in one of the Spinners at 250 mph.
3) Or he’s not a replicant and he kills Roy Batty.
So he’ll choose one of the three endings like Apocalypse Now or else let the public choose their own like Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
He will get it right. I have no doubt that he will get it right. Any one of the three possibilities will be satisfactory. I’ve talked to writer friends of mine who’ve read the novel and they hope that it doesn’t turn out that he is literally a replicant because God knows that’s back to The Stepford Wives and Westworld and all that stuff, and I would kind of like to see him not literally be a replicant. I would like to have him metaphorically be a replicant because that shows that any one of us could be dehumanized in the effort of fighting evil..."
in "Philip K. Dick: The Last Interview : And Other Conversations", see https://gosafir.com/mag/books/The-Last-Interview.pdf
Now this
It's like "Sir" Ed Davey reaching office then suddenly turning into a sort of British Mussolini, but much more successful and detailed
Amiright.
What I see is @Jonathan who briskly and painfully lost an argument, and now mewls and bleats
He'll have to go
So, too, the bunch he luncheons with
It's second on my list of things to do
eg here is the ERS in 2005:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-2005-general-election-worst-election-ever/
600 constituency MPs
50 MPs representing their party nationwide
So we lose 50 constituencies, and the remaining 50 seats are allocated by percentage of the vote won. UKIP in 2015 got one seat for 13.6% of the bite, obviously outrageously unfair (and probably contributed to Brexit & the parliamentary mess for the next three years). Under my system they’d have got their one MP, Douglas Carswell, and six or seven more to speak for the 3.9m people who voted for them.
Liberal democracy needs to have better answers.
Useful for whips - "Behave and we move you up the national list. Misbehave...."
No. We don't want that.
Ukraine to be sacrificed to help his election chances . The GOP are spineless traitorous scum and any politician in the UK supporting Trump is the same .
I think maybe only Hungary currently has something like this
Have to take it easy and other investigations taking place but very content and 100% to all the staff and doctors
I would just say I doubt I will rediscover my appetite for lots of controversy but it is as certain as is possible Starmer is heading for a substantial majority and as far as I am concerned the GE cannot come soon enough
Thank you to everyone who has been so kind to me as I go through this health emergency that started in mid October with a massive DVT in my right thigh
It's about risk, the risk that comes with Donald Trump back in the WH. The man is driven 100% by spite, ego, pettiness, all is personal, it's about him and nothing else, therefore one can't predict with any confidence whatsoever what it will translate to in real world impact. It's about risk and the risk is sky high.
Plus it's a skewed risk. The chance of the benign extreme (he turns out to be fabulous, a model of calm competence and moral fibre) is let's face it zero. Whereas the chance of the malign extreme (he absolutely trashes the place) is quite high. That's the calculus and there's only one rational reaction to it - pass.
They appear to believe they have a divine right to be in government; they haven't.
I see people trying to argue against a fairer voting system using a flawed argument, that entirely overlooks that very many of our current lawmakers were effectively chosen by a handful of ideolgically driven usually-oldies sitting behind closed doors in a selection committee. Or, at best, by a vote of mostly elderly members after a closed meeting.
This discussion is moot.
Israel is an interesting case study because it rather debunks the myth that extremely proportional electoral systems are by definition always better than systems which produce less proportionality. Weimar Germany likewise.
I feel ok but have to take it easy for the next 6 weeks
It's not the most attractive of arguments.
There's almost certainly a link.
Fortunately my betting head says Labour landslide AND Trump loses. Head and heart are aligned on 2024's Big Two political events.
https://twitter.com/anneapplebaum/status/1754819695079834040
1. This, from Sen Ernst, is an amazing statement:
“I wish we had given James [Lankford] the benefit of the doubt to take a look at the text before we started speaking our opposition,” Ernst said...
Ernst continues: “But with that being said, it’s out there now, it’s already influenced the public and so we have to take that into consideration as we move forward.”
*In other words: it's already been attacked by propagandists on TV so we can't support it..
eg There is almost no graffiti here. That might seem minor, but is it really? Graffiti and litter are signs of a society in decline, and western cities, sadly including cities in Britain, are plagued with it - and it is getting worse
She is still with us, bless her