Will GE2024 produce a majority seats winner without a majority of votes? – politicalbetting.com

OldKingCole said:

Just been announced; Kwasi Kwarteng not to stand again.

Leon said:

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

rkrkrk said:

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.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

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.

Theuniondivvie said:

Leon said:

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.

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Leon

'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.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

OldKingCole said:

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.

Wulfrun_Phil said:

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.

Theuniondivvie said:

Carnyx said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ghedebrav said:

mwadams said:

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?

mwadams said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

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.

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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.

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

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.

Theuniondivvie said:

Ghedebrav said:

mwadams said:

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.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Keir Starmer exclusive: I will be ‘ruthless’ to change Britain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26i7cDZtZRc

20 minutes of Times Wireless soft-soaping LotO.

148grss said:

mwadams said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

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:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/05/03/would-pr-change-who-you-voted-for-tomorrow/

mwadams said:

148grss said:

mwadams said:

Mexicanpete said:

tlg86 said:

Mexicanpete said:

Casino_Royale said:

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:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/05/03/would-pr-change-who-you-voted-for-tomorrow/

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).

Jonathan said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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.

Ghedebrav said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Ghedebrav said:

mwadams said:

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.

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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?

Malmesbury said:

Jonathan said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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.

Jonathan said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Leon said:

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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.

Peter_the_Punter said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

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?

Peter_the_Punter said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

kjh said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

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?

Jonathan said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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.

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

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.

Pulpstar said:

isam said:

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

Selebian said:

tlg86 said:

Malmesbury said:

Ghedebrav said:

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

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

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.

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

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.

TOPPING said:

I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.

148grss said:

TOPPING said:

I see that with the upsetting news about KCIII PB has retreated to its happy place, a discussion about PR.

I mean we could retreat to my happy place, republicanism, but I doubt the rest of PB would agree with me.

kinabalu said:

StillWaters said:

FF43 said:

SouthamObserver said:

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.

isam said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

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

bondegezou said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

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.

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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?

TOPPING said:

NickPalmer said:

Selebian said:

tlg86 said:

Malmesbury said:

Ghedebrav said:

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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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"

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

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Leon

'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}

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

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.

Nigelb said:

Malmesbury said:

Peter_the_Punter said:

@Leon

'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.

Nigelb said:

Leon said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

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"

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

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.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

viewcode said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

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