I wll probably be abused for asking this, but the political conversation need to involve everyone; not just the voters in marginal seats.
Do we need a form of PR so that the opinions of the inhabitants of the rotten boroughs count? I rather think we do.
Yes to AV!!
Actually I agree with you but cant see how it ever comes about
The 1.5m who voted in the referendum because they realised their vote counted for once are an unanswerable argument for voting reform. If politics is to be for all the people all the people need to have a meaningful say.
Precisely this. Anyone talking about listening to ordinary people in left-behind towns who then continues to advocate FPTP is a hypocrite. It's really as simple as that. And, yes, I include all Labour supporters, MPs and ex-ministers in that.
And yet the same feelings exist in almost every country in the developed world regardless of the electoral system. It has to be deeper than that.
I think all political dramas are now finished. Nothing could top the Labour and Conservative reality of the last fortnight or so. Labour particularly is just draw droopingly mesmerising.
Just a little snippet the European Space Agency seem to have just committed to invest in the British company Reaction Engines Ltd to the tune of ten million quid. Not a huge sum but straws in the wind.
Just a little snippet the European Space Agency seem to have just committed to invest in the British company Reaction Engines Ltd to the tune of ten million quid. Not a huge sum but straws in the wind.
ESA already includes non-EU members Switzerland and Norway
I wll probably be abused for asking this, but the political conversation need to involve everyone; not just the voters in marginal seats.
Do we need a form of PR so that the opinions of the inhabitants of the rotten boroughs count? I rather think we do.
Yes to AV!!
Actually I agree with you but cant see how it ever comes about
The 1.5m who voted in the referendum because they realised their vote counted for once are an unanswerable argument for voting reform. If politics is to be for all the people all the people need to have a meaningful say.
Precisely this. Anyone talking about listening to ordinary people in left-behind towns who then continues to advocate FPTP is a hypocrite. It's really as simple as that. And, yes, I include all Labour supporters, MPs and ex-ministers in that.
Chukka was advocating voting reform most vociferously on BBCDP yesterday. At least some people can see the iceberg.
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
Fellow Tory Lady, too.
Leadsom is a joke. I'm gutted she pulled out yesterday. She would have been gubbed in the members' vote.
I have no doubt about it, I didn't bother putting together the results of my poll, it was 75/25 in favour of Theresa in the end. Leadsom would have got smashed.
Above all, the fruits of the economy need to be much more fairly shared – not (or not just) in the form of handouts to the poorer areas but in terms of proper and visible investment in infrastructure and services and people and housing, in people being given control over what happens where they live. It means increased taxation of the better off. It means companies ensuring that the jobs boom really does benefit people in all parts of Britain. It means those at the top curbing their desire to take an ever increasing share of what their companies produce and sharing the fruits of their collective endeavours with the workers. And plenty more besides.
I think all political dramas are now finished. Nothing could top the Labour and Conservative reality of the last fortnight or so. Labour particularly is just draw droopingly mesmerising.
UKIP will top them all..they have form in elections for leader :-)
Nice piece, CF. As a Tory member I can still recognise that Ed Miliband's criticisms had some grains of truth in them for us to address.
This Vox piece, ostensibly about Pokémon Go, is relevant:
[T]he Pokémon Go economy also has some real downsides. One has to do with regional inequality. Nintendo and its partners are rumored to be earning more than $1 million per day from Pokémon Go. That money is flowing away from small and medium cities and toward big technology companies concentrated in big cities.
Ed was very good at identifying problems. Terrible at finding solutions. he should have stated working behind the scenes. He might then have done some good.
The Tories, with many years of guaranteed power ahead of them, now have a chance to come good on the promises they have been making for the last ten years about transforming society. However, that will involve discomfiting their client vote, including pensioners and well-off home owners in the south.
If you look at the heaviest areas of Leave they do not correspond with the highest levels of EU immigration, but they do very neatly match up with those areas that have seen the greatest cuts in public spending and among the lowest levels of private sector investment.
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
Fellow Tory Lady, too.
Leadsom is a joke. I'm gutted she pulled out yesterday. She would have been gubbed in the members' vote.
I have no doubt about it, I didn't bother putting together the results of my poll, it was 75/25 in favour of Theresa in the end. Leadsom would have got smashed.
I asked a friend in solid North Yorkshire constituency association, he said there was an event of party members last Saturday made up of about 70% leavers and 30% remainers, and a lot not well disposed to Theresa May's approach in the home office, said the soundings were 80% May, 20% Leadsom, and most of that 20% was soft.
TCPoliticalBetting - you might want to check your father's prescriptions. When my mother came to me after a period in hospital she was confined to bed and just stared into the corner like a cat. I went through the drugs she had - when I came to a particular antipsychotic the nurse said "Oh, don't take her off that - she will want to get out of bed". She is much more alert and interested in things without that drug.
Nice piece, CF. As a Tory member I can still recognise that Ed Miliband's criticisms had some grains of truth in them for us to address.
This Vox piece, ostensibly about Pokémon Go, is relevant:
[T]he Pokémon Go economy also has some real downsides. One has to do with regional inequality. Nintendo and its partners are rumored to be earning more than $1 million per day from Pokémon Go. That money is flowing away from small and medium cities and toward big technology companies concentrated in big cities.
If you look at the heaviest areas of Leave they do not correspond with the highest levels of EU immigration, but they do very neatly match up with those areas that have seen the greatest cuts in public spending and among the lowest levels of private sector investment.
You got some data for that, Mr. O? I'd be very interested to see it.
Above all, the fruits of the economy need to be much more fairly shared – not (or not just) in the form of handouts to the poorer areas but in terms of proper and visible investment in infrastructure and services and people and housing, in people being given control over what happens where they live. It means increased taxation of the better off. It means companies ensuring that the jobs boom really does benefit people in all parts of Britain. It means those at the top curbing their desire to take an ever increasing share of what their companies produce and sharing the fruits of their collective endeavours with the workers. And plenty more besides.
Absolutely spot on.
*APPLAUSE*
Let's face it this is never going to happen under the current political system.The best we can manage is to protect our quality of life by accepting that economic growth driven by unlimited population expansion is not socially sustainable.
Just a little snippet the European Space Agency seem to have just committed to invest in the British company Reaction Engines Ltd to the tune of ten million quid. Not a huge sum but straws in the wind.
ESA already includes non-EU members Switzerland and Norway
Just like Horizon 2020 and Erasmus Plus, then :-).
Second. A very good post, Mrs Cyclefree. Are you sure you are not a Liberal Democrat?
I particularly liked your paragraph about London and the bankers. A lot of people who post on PB seem to be concerned only with the effect that the Referendum result will have on the financial sector.
In a way I think that this referendum has been more divisive - or brought out the divisions more clearly - precisely because it was not a GE and because every vote counted. It has also made me rethink my approach to the voting system. We should make every vote count. We may not like the result but better that than sullen acquiescence/indifference for years and then - boom - a shock.
Im not sure that you can say every vote counted . You could equally argue that the referendum had the greatest number of votes ever cast which did not count . If I had not voted at all or switched votes it would not only have made no difference to the result but also not have changed the %s of the 2 outcomes .
However, on this point, I agree with Cyclefree. If I take your argument, the loser's vote never counts !
Cyclefree appears to be changing her preference. In our GE's: in about 450 seats, there is no point voting at all. I could say the same in 40 out of 50 seats in the US.
And yet a lot more seats do change hands than that, something which the new boundaries will probably contribute further to. Scotland is exceptional but even in England and Wales, whether through demographic change or hard slog, seats that were once 'safe' become vulnerable (and vice versa), in addition to the short-term marginals.
But the crucial point is this: no seat is inevitably safe by some natural law: every candidate starts on zero and if one party wins time after time then that's because it's what the people there want.
Because the boundary review process is essentially a pitched battle between the two big parties - and the lawyers they spend money to employ arguing their case at boundary review hearings - and because both of the two big parties principal interest is to defend and create safe seats for their senior politicians - the long run trend is for the proportion of seats that are safe to increase and the proportion that are marginal to decline.
Do you have any evidence for that assertion about the safe seat / marginals ratio (or, for that matter, the one about expensive lawyers - I was involved in the last, aborted, review as a middle-ranking activist and never came anywhere near a paid lawyer).
Just a little snippet the European Space Agency seem to have just committed to invest in the British company Reaction Engines Ltd to the tune of ten million quid. Not a huge sum but straws in the wind.
ESA already includes non-EU members Switzerland and Norway
Just like Horizon 2020 and Erasmus Plus, then :-).
Second. A very good post, Mrs Cyclefree. Are you sure you are not a Liberal Democrat?
I particularly liked your paragraph about London and the bankers. A lot of people who post on PB seem to be concerned only with the effect that the Referendum result will have on the financial sector.
In a way I think that this referendum has been more divisive - or brought out the divisions more clearly - precisely because it was not a GE and because every vote counted. It has also made me rethink my approach to the voting system. We should make every vote count. We may not like the result but better that than sullen acquiescence/indifference for years and then - boom - a shock.
Im not sure that you can say every vote counted . You could equally argue that the referendum had the greatest number of votes ever cast which did not count . If I had not voted at all or switched votes it would not only have made no difference to the result but also not have changed the %s of the 2 outcomes .
However, on this point, I agree with Cyclefree. If I take your argument, the loser's vote never counts !
Cyclefree appears to be changing her preference. In our GE's: in about 450 seats, there is no point voting at all. I could say the same in 40 out of 50 seats in the US.
And yet a lot more seats do change hands than that, something which the new boundaries will probably contribute further to. Scotland is exceptional but even in England and Wales, whether through demographic change or hard slog, seats that were once 'safe' become vulnerable (and vice versa), in addition to the short-term marginals.
But the crucial point is this: no seat is inevitably safe by some natural law: every candidate starts on zero and if one party wins time after time then that's because it's what the people there want.
Because the boundary review process is essentially a pitched battle between the two big parties - and the lawyers they spend money to employ arguing their case at boundary review hearings - and because both of the two big parties principal interest is to defend and create safe seats for their senior politicians - the long run trend is for the proportion of seats that are safe to increase and the proportion that are marginal to decline.
I disagree with this. One change for this review and the previous aborted review was to require all seats to be within 5% of the average. This reduces the options in quite a lot of areas and will result in diverse areas being cobbled together which could lead to more marginals e.g. in the last review the aborted Chingford and Edmonton
Rou ReynoldsVerified account @RouReynolds 4h4 hours ago I’m no blinkered Corbynite but how on earth can anyone believe Angela Eagle offers the charisma & leadership panache that Corbyn lacks?!
Above all, the fruits of the economy need to be much more fairly shared – not (or not just) in the form of handouts to the poorer areas but in terms of proper and visible investment in infrastructure and services and people and housing, in people being given control over what happens where they live. It means increased taxation of the better off. It means companies ensuring that the jobs boom really does benefit people in all parts of Britain. It means those at the top curbing their desire to take an ever increasing share of what their companies produce and sharing the fruits of their collective endeavours with the workers. And plenty more besides.
Absolutely spot on.
*APPLAUSE*
Let's face it this is never going to happen under the current political system.The best we can manage is to protect our quality of life by accepting that economic growth driven by unlimited population expansion is not socially sustainable.
Yes, like your point. The UK's economic "success" is due to population increase. GDP per capita hasn't materially increased since 2006. It's barely above 2003 levels. We need better productivity more than we need more people.
Interesting robert doesn't think Scotland will go independent due to the oil price collapse. But didn't the people just ignore the economic warnings about Brexit the Scots could do the same.
Mr. Nunu, whilst I do think the projections of doom point generally is valid, it's worth pointing out that, now, the much diminished oil price is a matter of fact, not a prophecy.
I wll probably be abused for asking this, but the political conversation need to involve everyone; not just the voters in marginal seats.
Do we need a form of PR so that the opinions of the inhabitants of the rotten boroughs count? I rather think we do.
Yes to AV!!
Actually I agree with you but cant see how it ever comes about
The 1.5m who voted in the referendum because they realised their vote counted for once are an unanswerable argument for voting reform. If politics is to be for all the people all the people need to have a meaningful say.
But the Referendum was a binary vote which was going to produce one of two results. A PR system would result in the exact opposite - constant confusion with no majority for any single party and a Government that nobody would have directly voted for!
Second. A very good post, Mrs Cyclefree. Are you sure you are not a Liberal Democrat?
I particularly liked your paragraph about London and the bankers. A lot of people who post on PB seem to be concerned only with the effect that the Referendum result will have on the financial sector.
In a way I think that this referendum has been more divisive - or brought out the divisions more clearly - precisely because it was not a GE and because every vote counted. It has also made me rethink my approach to the voting system. We should make every vote count.
s .
However, on this point, I agree with Cyclefree. If I take your argument, the loser's vote never counts !
Cyclefree appears to be changing her preference. In our GE's: in about 450 seats, there is no point voting at all. I could say the same in 40 out of 50 seats in the US.
But the crucial point is this: no seat is inevitably safe by some natural law: every candidate starts on zero and if one party wins time after time then that's because it's what the people there want.
Because the boundary review process is essentially a pitched battle between the two big parties - and the lawyers they spend money to employ arguing their case at boundary review hearings - and because both of the two big parties principal interest is to defend and create safe seats for their senior politicians - the long run trend is for the proportion of seats that are safe to increase and the proportion that are marginal to decline.
Do you have any evidence for that assertion about the safe seat / marginals ratio (or, for that matter, the one about expensive lawyers - I was involved in the last, aborted, review as a middle-ranking activist and never came anywhere near a paid lawyer).
The marginals/safe seat analysis I have seen before, but don't have a link to confirm. If I get time I will do some digging.
I myself have been (unpaid) advocate at a boundary review hearing up against paid lawyers from the Tory and Labour parties. And attended others as a witness where such lawyers are present. It isn't surprising, given the importance of the outcome to the careers of senior politicians, that the parties are prepared to spend £ on putting forward the most convincing possible case.
My own view has always been that the whole boundary process is an elaborate charade, and the sort of nonsense that is put forward in support of this or that boundary is yet a further reason why our current electoral system is utterly broken.
Above all, the fruits of the economy need to be much more fairly shared – not (or not just) in the form of handouts to the poorer areas but in terms of proper and visible investment in infrastructure and services and people and housing, in people being given control over what happens where they live. It means increased taxation of the better off. It means companies ensuring that the jobs boom really does benefit people in all parts of Britain. It means those at the top curbing their desire to take an ever increasing share of what their companies produce and sharing the fruits of their collective endeavours with the workers. And plenty more besides.
Absolutely spot on.
*APPLAUSE*
Let's face it this is never going to happen under the current political system.The best we can manage is to protect our quality of life by accepting that economic growth driven by unlimited population expansion is not socially sustainable.
Yes, like your point. The UK's economic "success" is due to population increase. GDP per capita hasn't materially increased since 2006. It's barely above 2003 levels. We need better productivity more than we need more people.
The question is will the UK workforce be shocked into taking those lowish-paid, back-breaking fruit-picking jobs once the supply of cheap EU labour dries up?
And will they pick more fruit per unit of labour?
The British public certainly didn't shy away from the big economic challenges with their vote on Jun 23.
On another note I was very sorry to hear of your family challenges.
Above all, the fruits of the economy need to be much more fairly shared – not (or not just) in the form of handouts to the poorer areas but in terms of proper and visible investment in infrastructure and services and people and housing, in people being given control over what happens where they live. It means increased taxation of the better off. It means companies ensuring that the jobs boom really does benefit people in all parts of Britain. It means those at the top curbing their desire to take an ever increasing share of what their companies produce and sharing the fruits of their collective endeavours with the workers. And plenty more besides.
Absolutely spot on.
*APPLAUSE*
Let's face it this is never going to happen under the current political system.The best we can manage is to protect our quality of life by accepting that economic growth driven by unlimited population expansion is not socially sustainable.
Yes, like your point. The UK's economic "success" is due to population increase. GDP per capita hasn't materially increased since 2006. It's barely above 2003 levels. We need better productivity more than we need more people.
Exactly. Osborne clearly sees this as as critical to his economic policy- he has obviously not read Malthus for a while.
Rou ReynoldsVerified account @RouReynolds 4h4 hours ago I’m no blinkered Corbynite but how on earth can anyone believe Angela Eagle offers the charisma & leadership panache that Corbyn lacks?!
That's a very good piece, Cyclefree (and congrats for your son too). There are several separate thoughts there, all worth discussing. The immediately relevant one is the one I've been banging on about for weeks:
--------- Until the necessary hard thinking is done about what Labour, about what any left of centre party is for, there is little point in Labour thrashing around to find the latest vaguely presentable MP to act as an alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn has an idea about what Labour should be and think. Any alternative needs to have an idea about what Labour should be and think, something more than “not Corbyn”. --------- Exactly.
On globalisation, as soon as it started to happen, I thought "this is going to change our world and all our assumptions of permanently rising prosperity for all in the West" and so it's proved. The first party to identify some real responses to that will be in power for a long time, deserrvedly.
In my opinion, it can only be addressed at a larger scale than single states. Perhaps we should join the EU...
I wll probably be abused for asking this, but the political conversation need to involve everyone; not just the voters in marginal seats.
Do we need a form of PR so that the opinions of the inhabitants of the rotten boroughs count? I rather think we do.
Yes to AV!!
Actually I agree with you but cant see how it ever comes about
The 1.5m who voted in the referendum because they realised their vote counted for once are an unanswerable argument for voting reform. If politics is to be for all the people all the people need to have a meaningful say.
Precisely this. Anyone talking about listening to ordinary people in left-behind towns who then continues to advocate FPTP is a hypocrite. It's really as simple as that. And, yes, I include all Labour supporters, MPs and ex-ministers in that.
And yet the same feelings exist in almost every country in the developed world regardless of the electoral system. It has to be deeper than that.
Give me multi-member STV any day - but your observation is accurate and astute. People seeking peculiarly British causes for a phenomenon that spreads far beyond these shores seem to me to be looking in the wrong places.
Do I think that an alternative to FPTP could improve voter engagement? Yes. Do I think it will cure the problem of the divide between our political class and a huge chunk of the electorate? Nope.
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
Fellow Tory Lady, too.
Leadsom is a joke. I'm gutted she pulled out yesterday. She would have been gubbed in the members' vote.
We'll never know.
Yes we do, the YouGov polls show she was going to get gubbed, JohnO and ToryJim both influential in Tory circles also indicated an absolute gubbing for Leadsom
Tim Fallon's attempts to get some attention are so cute.
Fallon ???
It's an old PB joke - Someone misspells Tim Farron's name as "Tim Fallon" and then another person replies 'Who'
Don't you mean Michael Farron?
LOL.
Several months ago I completely forgot who the leader of the Lib Dems was. You know you are irrelevant when even people who have an interest in politics forget who you are.
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
I think that Ruth would be better off spending her time sticking the boot into Nicola Sturgeon than refighting that particular battle.
Since the Holyrood vote, Ruth has failed to lay a glove on Nicola Sturgeon or the SNP. If anything her party are in retreat as their two election pledges - a strong opposition and no second indyref - come undone.
The only boots being stuck in are those landing on Ruth. Even Willie Rennie has been making her look stupid at Holyrood. Willie Rennie.
When you're being given the run around by a man whose politics consists of sliding down rubber volcanoes and a warm up act for furtive pigs, your time in the spotlight is probably over.
Above all, the fruits of the economy need to be much more fairly shared – not (or not just) in the form of handouts to the poorer areas but in terms of proper and visible investment in infrastructure and services and people and housing, in people being given control over what happens where they live. It means increased taxation of the better off. It means companies ensuring that the jobs boom really does benefit people in all parts of Britain. It means those at the top curbing their desire to take an ever increasing share of what their companies produce and sharing the fruits of their collective endeavours with the workers. And plenty more besides.
Absolutely spot on.
*APPLAUSE*
Let's face it this is never going to happen under the current political system.The best we can manage is to protect our quality of life by accepting that economic growth driven by unlimited population expansion is not socially sustainable.
Yes, like your point. The UK's economic "success" is due to population increase. GDP per capita hasn't materially increased since 2006. It's barely above 2003 levels. We need better productivity more than we need more people.
The question is will the UK workforce be shocked into taking those lowish-paid, back-breaking fruit-picking jobs once the supply of cheap EU labour dries up?
And will they pick more fruit per unit of labour?
The British public certainly didn't shy away from the big economic challenges with their vote on Jun 23.
On another note I was very sorry to hear of your family challenges.
I actually know about the fruit picking question, hoorah! Living on the borders of Herefordshire, we've had migrants (not all foreign) coming for the fruit harvest for decades - well before our EU membership.
It is genuinely temporary work. People come over, do the picking, go home. Looking at the figures, we had 3,200 incomers doing the harvest last year. They live on the farms, by and large.
As you say, it might change if Mrs May comes over all WTO. Or it may continue. At this point, we can't tell.
The first test for May will be the Osborne test. Quite how far away from the epicentre of British political life that particular ball of incompetent malevolence gets booted will be extremely telling.
I wll probably be abused for asking this, but the political conversation need to involve everyone; not just the voters in marginal seats.
Do we need a form of PR so that the opinions of the inhabitants of the rotten boroughs count? I rather think we do.
Yes to AV!!
Actually I agree with you but cant see how it ever comes about
The 1.5m who voted in the referendum because they realised their vote counted for once are an unanswerable argument for voting reform. If politics is to be for all the people all the people need to have a meaningful say.
Precisely this. Anyone talking about listening to ordinary people in left-behind towns who then continues to advocate FPTP is a hypocrite. It's really as simple as that. And, yes, I include all Labour supporters, MPs and ex-ministers in that.
And yet the same feelings exist in almost every country in the developed world regardless of the electoral system. It has to be deeper than that.
Give me multi-member STV any day - but your observation is accurate and astute. People seeking peculiarly British causes for a phenomenon that spreads far beyond these shores seem to me to be looking in the wrong places.
Do I think that an alternative to FPTP could improve voter engagement? Yes. Do I think it will cure the problem of the divide between our political class and a huge chunk of the electorate? Nope.
But it will get voices heard. A party that needs 37% of the vote to win has no incentive to govern for the good of the country as a whole. If the Tories look after pensioners and home owners they are pretty much guaranteed to be in government. That's even more so now that Labour is no longer even trying to be an opposition.
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
Fellow Tory Lady, too.
Leadsom is a joke. I'm gutted she pulled out yesterday. She would have been gubbed in the members' vote.
We'll never know.
Yes we do, the YouGov polls show she was going to get gubbed, JohnO and ToryJim both influential in Tory circles also indicated an absolute gubbing for Leadsom
That's a very good piece, Cyclefree (and congrats for your son too). There are several separate thoughts there, all worth discussing. The immediately relevant one is the one I've been banging on about for weeks:
--------- Until the necessary hard thinking is done about what Labour, about what any left of centre party is for, there is little point in Labour thrashing around to find the latest vaguely presentable MP to act as an alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn has an idea about what Labour should be and think. Any alternative needs to have an idea about what Labour should be and think, something more than “not Corbyn”. --------- Exactly.
On globalisation, as soon as it started to happen, I thought "this is going to change our world and all our assumptions of permanently rising prosperity for all in the West" and so it's proved. The first party to identify some real responses to that will be in power for a long time, deserrvedly.
In my opinion, it can only be addressed at a larger scale than single states. Perhaps we should join the EU...
But what if the way the Labour Party is institutionally constructed - not only its structure and rules but also its culture and traditions - means that it is impossible for it to adapt to the politics of the modern world, and the sooner it is replaced (or supplemented, within a more plural political system) with more effective vehicle(s) for advancing the centre-left case, the better?
I wll probably be abused for asking this, but the political conversation need to involve everyone; not just the voters in marginal seats.
Do we need a form of PR so that the opinions of the inhabitants of the rotten boroughs count? I rather think we do.
Yes to AV!!
Actually I agree with you but cant see how it ever comes about
The 1.5m who voted in the referendum because they realised their vote counted for once are an unanswerable argument for voting reform. If politics is to be for all the people all the people need to have a meaningful say.
Precisely this. Anyone talking about listening to ordinary people in left-behind towns who then continues to advocate FPTP is a hypocrite. It's really as simple as that. And, yes, I include all Labour supporters, MPs and ex-ministers in that.
And yet the same feelings exist in almost every country in the developed world regardless of the electoral system. It has to be deeper than that.
Give me multi-member STV any day - but your observation is accurate and astute. People seeking peculiarly British causes for a phenomenon that spreads far beyond these shores seem to me to be looking in the wrong places.
Do I think that an alternative to FPTP could improve voter engagement? Yes. Do I think it will cure the problem of the divide between our political class and a huge chunk of the electorate? Nope.
I don't think that the voting system is the sole cause of the issues. I was just saying that the referendum and how it brought people out to vote had made me look again at the whole issue of PR.
What is happening in Britain is happening elsewhere. The economic/political system we have had for the last 30 years or so has worked for some but not worked for many and the many are now making their feelings known.
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
Fellow Tory Lady, too.
Leadsom is a joke. I'm gutted she pulled out yesterday. She would have been gubbed in the members' vote.
We'll never know.
Yes we do, the YouGov polls show she was going to get gubbed, JohnO and ToryJim both influential in Tory circles also indicated an absolute gubbing for Leadsom
So we'll never know.
Because Leadsom wasn't up to it, but all the evidence indicates Leadsom would have been comprehensively defeated
Second. A very good post, Mrs Cyclefree. Are you sure you are not a Liberal Democrat?
I particularly liked your paragraph about London and the bankers. A lot of people who post on PB seem to be concerned only with the effect that the Referendum result will have on the financial sector.
Interestingly, two of the junior Cyclefrees joined the Lib Dems in the last fortnight and I voted for them last year. There was a very good local LD candidate in my constituency.
I work in the financial sector but I was struck by what the Northern bit of my family and all our friends in Millom and roundabout said during the referendum. They were pretty much all for Leave, thought it would win and felt that London needed a reality check. And indeed when I go there it makes me realise that what gets taken for granted in London is really not at all normal in the rest of the country. It is not enough for London to say that we pay for everything: behaving like Lady Bountiful is not really tenable long-term.
In a way I think that this referendum has been more divisive - or brought out the divisions more clearly - precisely because it was not a GE and because every vote counted. It has also made me rethink my approach to the voting system. We should make every vote count. We may not like the result but better that than sullen acquiescence/indifference for years and then - boom - a shock.
Perhaps TSE could give us his views?
Can I also thank you for an excellent article. I'm writing a big piece right now - called The Discontented - looking at the reasons why so many people in so many places are unhappy. I'll share it when I'm done. (Yes, with the whole of PB...)
What I find most interesting is that there is only one developed world country (that's not a massive commodity exporter) that's managed to square the circle in the last 25 years, and that's Germany.
East Germany in 1990 was a lot worse place than Millom, with lower skills, failing firms, and rising unemployment. Germany managed to revitalise its East, such that the unemployment rate in Brandenberg or Mecklenberg are below 6%. And they did it without the massively unbalanced economy that we have: there's no massive current account issue, or consumer debt issue, or reliance on housing or the vagaries of finance.
We would do well to learn lessons from the Germans as far as how regional policy should work.
The lessons to learn from Germany are surely the same ones to learn from China. Hold down your exchange rate and wage economic warfare on your neighbours?
and have someone else pick up the tab for your defense budget
I can't believe how shamelessly they disassociate with their fixed term legislation, quite cynical.
As I understand it, the FTPA was essentially a practical measure to preserve the coalition. It was meant to stop the Tories getting frisky and cutting the Lib Dems loose mid-term.
Post-coalition, I struggle to see its utility, particularly given that a simple majority on a NCM is enough for an election.
Tim Fallon's attempts to get some attention are so cute.
Fallon ???
It's an old PB joke - Someone misspells Tim Farron's name as "Tim Fallon" and then another person replies 'Who'
I really should have picked that up.
Theresa is about to become PM, we have a new cabinet charged with Brexit, labour likely to end up with less MP's than Tim Fallon !!, I am taking my family and four grandchildren to Tuscany in a week's time, so alls well here in North Wales.
I intend relaxing in the knowledge that it is unlikely that I will ever live through such a momentous political era again and maybe not post quite as furiously.
There is an argument that without the AMS system at Holyrood, the SNP would never have replaced Labour at Westminster.
Not a very good one though. The SNP were making inroads at constituency level as well as in the regions in 2007. Labour's decline might have been slower but the tipping point would still have come.
The first test for May will be the Osborne test. Quite how far away from the epicentre of British political life that particular ball of incompetent malevolence gets booted will be extremely telling.
''What is happening in Britain is happening elsewhere. The economic/political system we have had for the last 30 years or so has worked for some but not worked for many and the many are now making their feelings known. ''
I get the feeling we are closer to the start of this than the end.
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
Fellow Tory Lady, too.
Leadsom is a joke. I'm gutted she pulled out yesterday. She would have been gubbed in the members' vote.
We'll never know.
Yes we do, the YouGov polls show she was going to get gubbed, JohnO and ToryJim both influential in Tory circles also indicated an absolute gubbing for Leadsom
So we'll never know.
On the best evidence we have she was going to lose by miles.
By all accounts, proceedings at the NEC are glacially slow – Crick reported earlier that 35 minutes into Labour NEC & members still hdn't been given party's legal advice on whether Corbyn can stand without nominations – Sparrow’s live up-dates appear comatose…!
That's a very good piece, Cyclefree (and congrats for your son too). There are several separate thoughts there, all worth discussing. The immediately relevant one is the one I've been banging on about for weeks:
--------- Until the necessary hard thinking is done about what Labour, about what any left of centre party is for, there is little point in Labour thrashing around to find the latest vaguely presentable MP to act as an alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn has an idea about what Labour should be and think. Any alternative needs to have an idea about what Labour should be and think, something more than “not Corbyn”. --------- Exactly.
On globalisation, as soon as it started to happen, I thought "this is going to change our world and all our assumptions of permanently rising prosperity for all in the West" and so it's proved. The first party to identify some real responses to that will be in power for a long time, deserrvedly.
In my opinion, it can only be addressed at a larger scale than single states. Perhaps we should join the EU...
Not Corbyn = Labour being a party that wants to govern. There is no point in having great ideas if you are not in a position to put them into place. In a parliamentary democracy that means winning elections. There is no Labour politician who could deliver Labour a victory at the next GE, but there are plenty who could ensure that Labour remains a party serious about contesting and winning general elections. Corbyn is not one of them because he does not believe in Parliament as a vehicle for change. That is his problem. Not his policies.
On any Labour split. What happens if Democratic Labour have more seats than Labour once the split is done? Does the leader of that party sit as the official LOTO? Does Bercow rule on it?
.@RuthDavidsonMSP sticks the boot in at Lobby Lunch: "Before politics, I single-handedly saved the banking system. Speaking as a mother..."
.@RuthDavidsonMSP: "I didn't say that, you can't report that, and it would be gutter journalism of the lowest order..."
Fellow Tory Lady, too.
Leadsom is a joke. I'm gutted she pulled out yesterday. She would have been gubbed in the members' vote.
We'll never know.
Yes we do, the YouGov polls show she was going to get gubbed, JohnO and ToryJim both influential in Tory circles also indicated an absolute gubbing for Leadsom
So we'll never know.
Because Leadsom wasn't up to it, but all the evidence indicates Leadsom would have been comprehensively defeated
It's like debating whether the runner up of The Dewhurst would have won the Champion Chase.
That's a very good piece, Cyclefree (and congrats for your son too). There are several separate thoughts there, all worth discussing. The immediately relevant one is the one I've been banging on about for weeks:
--------- Until the necessary hard thinking is done about what Labour, about what any left of centre party is for, there is little point in Labour thrashing around to find the latest vaguely presentable MP to act as an alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn has an idea about what Labour should be and think. Any alternative needs to have an idea about what Labour should be and think, something more than “not Corbyn”. --------- Exactly.
On globalisation, as soon as it started to happen, I thought "this is going to change our world and all our assumptions of permanently rising prosperity for all in the West" and so it's proved. The first party to identify some real responses to that will be in power for a long time, deserrvedly.
In my opinion, it can only be addressed at a larger scale than single states. Perhaps we should join the EU...
On the second point, I think that a different sort of EU would have helped our response. The problem has been the obstinate determination to keep going on the same path regardless of events and regardless of what the people themselves want or feel. Globalisation is not an act of God. It is a choice. For too long the choice has been to go with economic forces at the expense of people - put very simply and crudely. That is not tenable in the long run and a more agile, responsive and human approach would have avoided the situation we are now in where it feels (whether rightly or wrongly) as if government is a conspiracy against the people rather than a government for the people.
I wll probably be abused for asking this, but the political conversation need to involve everyone; not just the voters in marginal seats.
Do we need a form of PR so that the opinions of the inhabitants of the rotten boroughs count? I rather think we do.
Yes to AV!!
Actually I agree with you but cant see how it ever comes about
The 1.5m who voted in the referendum because they realised their vote counted for once are an unanswerable argument for voting reform. If politics is to be for all the people all the people need to have a meaningful say.
Precisely this. Anyone talking about listening to ordinary people in left-behind towns who then continues to advocate FPTP is a hypocrite. It's really as simple as that. And, yes, I include all Labour supporters, MPs and ex-ministers in that.
And yet the same feelings exist in almost every country in the developed world regardless of the electoral system. It has to be deeper than that.
Give me multi-member STV any day - but your observation is accurate and astute. People seeking peculiarly British causes for a phenomenon that spreads far beyond these shores seem to me to be looking in the wrong places.
Do I think that an alternative to FPTP could improve voter engagement? Yes. Do I think it will cure the problem of the divide between our political class and a huge chunk of the electorate? Nope.
I don't think that the voting system is the sole cause of the issues. I was just saying that the referendum and how it brought people out to vote had made me look again at the whole issue of PR.
What is happening in Britain is happening elsewhere. The economic/political system we have had for the last 30 years or so has worked for some but not worked for many and the many are now making their feelings known.
You get to govern with 37% of the vote in the UK. That is not a system that is working for the many.
I can't believe how shamelessly they disassociate with their fixed term legislation, quite cynical.
As I understand it, the FTPA was essentially a practical measure to preserve the coalition. It was meant to stop the Tories getting frisky and cutting the Lib Dems loose mid-term.
Post-coalition, I struggle to see its utility, particularly given that a simple majority on a NCM is enough for an election.
Exactly. Yes, there are arguments about certainty and stability, and not having the third/fourth year of a government destabilised by all the "will he, won't he" speculation we used to endure. But the bottom line is that you cannot be junior partner in a coalition if your senior partner's PM has sole discretion to dissolve the arrangement and go for an election as soon as s/he thinks the planets are best aligned.
The coalition endured for its full term and history will probably put it right up there amongst the best governments of recent history. The FTPA was a key part in making it happen. But its relevance to the current government with a new PM and narrow majority is clearly questionable.
Whatever happens now, I want to hear from the government not only that "the people voted for Brexit and we will implement it" but that "the people voted for it and we think it's a good/bad idea". The government can't sit on the fence. It'd be odd to implement the policy if it disagrees with it, but that's the price you pay for democracy-by-referendum, and it would obviously have been the case if Scotland had voted for independence. (It follows from what I've said that Cameron had no excuse to resign other than cowardice and/or disrespect.)
If Brexit goes tits-up, people will blame the government, not themselves. People will say: "We wanted Brexit but I can't believe the stupid politicians went through with it if they knew what the consequences would be." Therefore the government needs to nail its colours to the mast.
So, whether there's a debate in parliament or not, the May government should reflect on the consequences of Brexit, and make a clear statement, not just that they'll "make the best of it", but that Brexit is in our country's interest (or not). Anything less would be a massive cop-out.
Precisely this. Anyone talking about listening to ordinary people in left-behind towns who then continues to advocate FPTP is a hypocrite. It's really as simple as that. And, yes, I include all Labour supporters, MPs and ex-ministers in that.
And yet the same feelings exist in almost every country in the developed world regardless of the electoral system. It has to be deeper than that.
Give me multi-member STV any day - but your observation is accurate and astute. People seeking peculiarly British causes for a phenomenon that spreads far beyond these shores seem to me to be looking in the wrong places.
Do I think that an alternative to FPTP could improve voter engagement? Yes. Do I think it will cure the problem of the divide between our political class and a huge chunk of the electorate? Nope.
But it will get voices heard. A party that needs 37% of the vote to win has no incentive to govern for the good of the country as a whole. If the Tories look after pensioners and home owners they are pretty much guaranteed to be in government. That's even more so now that Labour is no longer even trying to be an opposition.
That's a good point and is one of the many reasons I dislike FPTP. But I don't think it addresses Felix's excellent point. Changes to the voting system can produce structural changes in British politics, sure. But I don't think those changes will succeed in significantly narrowing The Gap, or quieting The Howling Across The Gap. Each in their own way, this Howling is basically what Trump and the Euroref and Le Pen and 5 Star and the AFD and Podemos and a myriad others across the western world have been about. I'd probably even include the Cleggasm in that, and the toxic fallout when the electorate twigged "wait, he's just one of Them too" rather reinforces that for me.
Like Nick Palmer, I think it's likely the deeper issue ultimately arises from the economic and cultural forces of globalisation, though unlike Nick I don't think the EU provides much by way of an answer.
By all accounts, proceedings at the NEC are glacially slow – Crick reported earlier that 35 minutes into Labour NEC & members still hdn't been given party's legal advice on whether Corbyn can stand without nominations – Sparrow’s live up-dates appear comatose…!
Can you blame them? They're sitting on a bomb debating whether to cut the red wire or the green one. Whichever they choose, the bomb goes off.
On any Labour split. What happens if Democratic Labour have more seats than Labour once the split is done? Does the leader of that party sit as the official LOTO? Does Bercow rule on it?
The party with the largest number of seats not in government is the opposition. I thought this was well established.
That's a very good piece, Cyclefree (and congrats for your son too). There are several separate thoughts there, all worth discussing. The immediately relevant one is the one I've been banging on about for weeks:
--------- Until the necessary hard thinking is done about what Labour, about what any left of centre party is for, there is little point in Labour thrashing around to find the latest vaguely presentable MP to act as an alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn has an idea about what Labour should be and think. Any alternative needs to have an idea about what Labour should be and think, something more than “not Corbyn”. --------- Exactly.
On globalisation, as soon as it started to happen, I thought "this is going to change our world and all our assumptions of permanently rising prosperity for all in the West" and so it's proved. The first party to identify some real responses to that will be in power for a long time, deserrvedly.
In my opinion, it can only be addressed at a larger scale than single states. Perhaps we should join the EU...
Not Corbyn = Labour being a party that wants to govern. There is no point in having great ideas if you are not in a position to put them into place. In a parliamentary democracy that means winning elections. There is no Labour politician who could deliver Labour a victory at the next GE, but there are plenty who could ensure that Labour remains a party serious about contesting and winning general elections. Corbyn is not one of them because he does not believe in Parliament as a vehicle for change. That is his problem. Not his policies.
Not Corbyn is not an end point, its just a starting point which hopefully stops the poison spreading to the rest of the party....
After that Labour needs to work out both who its targeting and how to target them. For the last 30 years Labour has usually perceived itself as "Not the Tory" party. That worked in a 2 party country where your core audience hated the Tories more than anything else... It doesn't work now and it didn't work in Scotland as soon as a second party that didn't begin with C appeared....
Comments
May better hope it does not become a meme.
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/752860050155249665
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/752860640872726528
Ask a Scottish Labour MP...
@lindayueh: US stocks at record highs: S&P 500 rose further into record territory, Dow Jones passed its all-time closing high https://t.co/q3M2D7GTDV
UKIP will top them all..they have form in elections for leader :-)
(no wimmin allowed)
The Tories, with many years of guaranteed power ahead of them, now have a chance to come good on the promises they have been making for the last ten years about transforming society. However, that will involve discomfiting their client vote, including pensioners and well-off home owners in the south.
If you look at the heaviest areas of Leave they do not correspond with the highest levels of EU immigration, but they do very neatly match up with those areas that have seen the greatest cuts in public spending and among the lowest levels of private sector investment.
https://twitter.com/jack_blanchard_/status/752850213157605376
Double date for Keith.
Was he amongst the 172 ?
Also, I have returned. Good afternoon, everyone.
I’m no blinkered Corbynite but how on earth can anyone believe Angela Eagle offers the charisma & leadership panache that Corbyn lacks?!
Paddy Ellis (Chair) ?
I myself have been (unpaid) advocate at a boundary review hearing up against paid lawyers from the Tory and Labour parties. And attended others as a witness where such lawyers are present. It isn't surprising, given the importance of the outcome to the careers of senior politicians, that the parties are prepared to spend £ on putting forward the most convincing possible case.
My own view has always been that the whole boundary process is an elaborate charade, and the sort of nonsense that is put forward in support of this or that boundary is yet a further reason why our current electoral system is utterly broken.
And will they pick more fruit per unit of labour?
The British public certainly didn't shy away from the big economic challenges with their vote on Jun 23.
On another note I was very sorry to hear of your family challenges.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120
And that's extremely toxic for May.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/07/11/corbyn-v-eagle-will-decide-whether-lab-continues-to-be-a-parliamentary-party/
---------
Until the necessary hard thinking is done about what Labour, about what any left of centre party is for, there is little point in Labour thrashing around to find the latest vaguely presentable MP to act as an alternative to Corbyn. Corbyn has an idea about what Labour should be and think. Any alternative needs to have an idea about what Labour should be and think, something more than “not Corbyn”.
---------
Exactly.
On globalisation, as soon as it started to happen, I thought "this is going to change our world and all our assumptions of permanently rising prosperity for all in the West" and so it's proved. The first party to identify some real responses to that will be in power for a long time, deserrvedly.
In my opinion, it can only be addressed at a larger scale than single states. Perhaps we should join the EU...
Do I think that an alternative to FPTP could improve voter engagement? Yes. Do I think it will cure the problem of the divide between our political class and a huge chunk of the electorate? Nope.
Several months ago I completely forgot who the leader of the Lib Dems was. You know you are irrelevant when even people who have an interest in politics forget who you are.
The only boots being stuck in are those landing on Ruth. Even Willie Rennie has been making her look stupid at Holyrood. Willie Rennie.
When you're being given the run around by a man whose politics consists of sliding down rubber volcanoes and a warm up act for furtive pigs, your time in the spotlight is probably over.
It is genuinely temporary work. People come over, do the picking, go home. Looking at the figures, we had 3,200 incomers doing the harvest last year. They live on the farms, by and large.
As you say, it might change if Mrs May comes over all WTO. Or it may continue. At this point, we can't tell.
Impress me Theresa!
He's eminently qualified for the role.
What is happening in Britain is happening elsewhere. The economic/political system we have had for the last 30 years or so has worked for some but not worked for many and the many are now making their feelings known.
Post-coalition, I struggle to see its utility, particularly given that a simple majority on a NCM is enough for an election.
Theresa is about to become PM, we have a new cabinet charged with Brexit, labour likely to end up with less MP's than Tim Fallon !!, I am taking my family and four grandchildren to Tuscany in a week's time, so alls well here in North Wales.
I intend relaxing in the knowledge that it is unlikely that I will ever live through such a momentous political era again and maybe not post quite as furiously.
I get the feeling we are closer to the start of this than the end.
https://twitter.com/stvharry/status/752870455866949632
Only next Chancellor, Home Secretary, and Foreign Secretary markets, courtesy of Shadsy
She is the Roy Chubby Brown of Scottish politics.
The coalition endured for its full term and history will probably put it right up there amongst the best governments of recent history. The FTPA was a key part in making it happen. But its relevance to the current government with a new PM and narrow majority is clearly questionable.
If Brexit goes tits-up, people will blame the government, not themselves. People will say: "We wanted Brexit but I can't believe the stupid politicians went through with it if they knew what the consequences would be." Therefore the government needs to nail its colours to the mast.
So, whether there's a debate in parliament or not, the May government should reflect on the consequences of Brexit, and make a clear statement, not just that they'll "make the best of it", but that Brexit is in our country's interest (or not). Anything less would be a massive cop-out.
Like Nick Palmer, I think it's likely the deeper issue ultimately arises from the economic and cultural forces of globalisation, though unlike Nick I don't think the EU provides much by way of an answer.
After that Labour needs to work out both who its targeting and how to target them. For the last 30 years Labour has usually perceived itself as "Not the Tory" party. That worked in a 2 party country where your core audience hated the Tories more than anything else... It doesn't work now and it didn't work in Scotland as soon as a second party that didn't begin with C appeared....