Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 17:44:01 GMT
Haven't got time. I'm still trying to work out who the BBC presenter is... Seems to be developing into yet another story where the parties concerned dont see what the problem is. Sun continues to allege that the BBC has not investigated the matter. Which is quite a climbdown. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 17:47:18 GMT
there is now a growing ecology of expensive bio-security industries serving the needs of the wealthy and influential. This is a good example - event-scan.us/ Event scan or event scam? |
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Jul 10, 2023 17:48:27 GMT
A twist on the BBC presenter story, it seems a lawyer representing the 'victim' has said that nothing unlawful or inappropriate had taken place and they asked the Sun to rescind the story on Friday and that the story was 'rubbish' Time will tell what the truth is But it's taken Tory bad news off the headlines for a few days, so it's done its job. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 10, 2023 18:00:08 GMT
A slightly rhetorical question, but what on earth is remotely "negative" about voting in a way that gets rid of a government that you think is damaging the country and society in which you live? I would say that's a very "positive" expression of a vote.
How that vote is exercised, and which party is the beneficiary, is a matter of secondary importance I would have thought. Most of the potential beneficiaries are likely to be unwieldy coalitions anyway and it is very unlikely that any of them will be selling you tickets to your particular utopia. The best you can hope for is that they offer something fairly close to what you would sort of quite like to maybe see happen. It hardly ever gets much better than that in the party politics created by our uniquely bad electoral system.
You just cut and paste, bodge and fix and try and cast your vote in order to achieve your priority ends.
All this negative and positive malarkey is nonsense really. If you go to a polling station on election day then you're being positive in my book, however you cast your vote and whatever your intent or motivation.
Maybe the real "negative" voters are the 30-35% of the electorate who don't bother and decide to opt out of our democracy instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by James E on Jul 10, 2023 18:04:19 GMT
I don't think we've seen this one as it's only just appeared on Election Maps twitter, but there have been 7 other polls with more recent fieldwork. Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 45% (=) CON: 30% (+2) LDM: 11% (=) SNP: 3% (=) GRN: 3% (=) RFM: 3% (-2) Via @survation , 30 Jun - 2 Jul. Changes w/ 23-26 Jun. With 10 polls released so far with fieldwork in July, the average Labour lead is exactly 20%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 18:11:17 GMT
Would like to read that but it's paywalled.🙁 "As the ashes smoulder in French towns and cities following the recent nationwide riots, the National Rally leader Marine Le Pen must know that the next presidential election in 2027 is hers to lose." If the French rioting is going to affect the next election, then it is through the votes of those rioting. A chunk of people disaffected by current government policy, including putting down those riots. The risk to stable politics is that a government with minority support has disaffected a majority, who will therefore vote for whoever looks most likely to depose the current lot. It isnt a vote FOR anarchy, but against minority rule. The same was said as contributing at least in part to brexit. The situation in the UK looks exactly the same to me, its an anti con vote not a pro anyone vote. The main goal being to destabilise government, hasnt changed. It ends up with one unsatisfactory lot replacing another.
In the short term the system ensures the largest minority wins the next election. In the long term it ensures every political party which adopts this strategy becomes disgraced and increasingly fringe parties come to power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 18:35:52 GMT
p.s. what do folk think of Labour’s education proposals the other day? Oracy etc. I think they’d be better off encouraging them to talk more in public. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 18:46:49 GMT
A slightly rhetorical question, but what on earth is remotely "negative" about voting in a way that gets rid of a government that you think is damaging the country and society in which you live? I would say that's a very "positive" expression of a vote. Unfortunately none of the parties has any pressure on them to be popular or acceptable to a majority of the nation. The only pressure is to be seen as better than the incumbents by maybe 10% of the nation, on top of perhaps a 20% tribal support for each main party, who arent maybe paying much attention to whatever the policy is. Its damaging if cycle after cycle all parties become more and more niche. Which they have been. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 18:53:52 GMT
But also with hiv the government did the exact opposite to covid. It damped down scaremongering and tried to be realistic. Whereas the covid action from start to finish deliberately exaggerated risk to encourage comliance with restrictions. Well they were wrong. Covid was never the risk it was claimed. This still has not been admitted. You do seem to make up things to suit your theories. Do you think this ad damped anything down? www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SqRNUUOk7s with tag lines like 'so far its been confined to small groups, but its spreading', 'dont die of ignorance'. Did you interpret that as a call to arms to kill gays and drug users, or one for everyone to use a condom (presumably mentioned in the leaflet they tell you to read) |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 10, 2023 18:55:58 GMT
Labour had a member ( and union) funded party under Corbyn- no big donations from the rich were needed and they cleared all the inherited debt and left the party debt free in 2019 after three elections in 4 years. But they have ditched this model in favour of big business donations. So now it is an issue again. You put your finger on the problem. Union funding of the Labour party meant that Labour could never go against the wishes of the big Trade Unions, which was why Barbara Castle's "In Place of Strife" failed. While in Germany after WW2 our trade unions were instrumental in ensuring a co-operative approach in industry there with workers represented on company boards, they were never willing to do the same in this country even when in the 1970s it would have benefited both sides. Had "In Place of Strife" succeeded we might very well have seen Labour governments throughout the 1970s. “In Place of Strife” didn’t necessarily address the real problem. The late Sixties until the onset of the Eighties were characterised by very high inflation due to a complex of factors including the impact of devaluation, of the fall in Sterling on making the currency free-floating, then the Barber Boom and the big hikes in oil prices. Even before the oil crisis, inflation had risen to nearly ten percent, then with the oil price rises it shot up to a peak of 25%. Consider the CUMULATIVE rise year-after-year over the WHOLE period, and how that destroyed wage packets, and it’s pretty sobering: 1970 - 6.1% inflation 1971 - 9.5 1972 - 6.6 1973 - 8.8 1974 - 16.7 1975 - 25 1976 - 16.9 1977 - 16.2 1978 - 8.4 1979 - 12.5 1980 - 16.4 As it happens, the unions did a deal with Labour, where they greatly restricted the pay awards, first restricting them to 10%, and then to 5%, in an effort to bear down on the inflation. At the expense of their members’ ability to cope with the inflation. In turn this did see inflation drop to 8%, but then there was the second oil price spike, inflation shot up again, and the unions couldn’t hold the line anymore, as wages got trashed, even more. Fundamentally, the problem is governments’ desire to control inflation through restricting wages while inflation rages, instead of doing more to curtail the prices. A problem that we are revisiting now. But while some may point the finger at the working class unions in the 70s, despite the fact that they did actually act to bring inflation down at a cost to their members, there may be a relative silence about some of the more middle-class unions striking now. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 18:58:50 GMT
IIRC then an old topic of UKPR was how healthy Brits were during/soon after the war - due to rationing:
Wartime rationing helped the British get healthier than they had ever beenwww.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/9728#1NB I'm not suggesting we adopt rationing but the link between health and diet is beyond doubt and I'm not as relaxed as you seem to be about the economic or societal costs of La-La-Libertarianism. Then what do you suggest instead of rationing? But rationing was accepted (ignoring the massive black market for a moment where people ignored the rules) because it was obviously necessary to ensure no one starved. The fundamental rationale for restricting availability of sugar just doesnt exist now. If people carry on using dugs despite big penalties if caught, what do you imagine they would do if you tried to ban sugar? The bottom line is, if I die ten years early...so what? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 19:03:41 GMT
This all started because TfL apparently banned an poster for a play that featured a picture of a cake. It's an insignificant example of how we are slipping into Orwell's 1984. Control what people are allowed to see, and the words they are allowed to use, and independent thought gradually becomes not just difficult but literally impossible. Certainly looks as though rational thought is impossible for some.  Perhaps they had in mind how tobacco ads switched from showing the product directly as this was banned, to sponsoring sporting events so they would be name checked. A picture of a cake is still a cake. Its a reminder to buy cake.
But I still think advertisers do not need to advertise cake, it sells itself. They want to advertise different types of cake to get a market advantage.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 19:07:15 GMT
PS Actually I think the whole tariff cap thing is daft and should be scrapped but that is something for the Energy thread. The price cap was supposed to be set to prevent excessive profits. It has been used to prevent any profits and so bankrupt the small players who were most competitive. That is indeed a misuse. Scrapping it now would in the future enable the surviving big energy companies who have historically always offered the worst deals, to return to their past behaviour of extreme profiteering. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 10, 2023 19:07:38 GMT
You put your finger on the problem. Union funding of the Labour party meant that Labour could never go against the wishes of the big Trade Unions, which was why Barbara Castle's "In Place of Strife" failed. While in Germany after WW2 our trade unions were instrumental in ensuring a co-operative approach in industry there with workers represented on company boards, they were never willing to do the same in this country even when in the 1970s it would have benefited both sides. Had "In Place of Strife" succeeded we might very well have seen Labour governments throughout the 1970s. In Place of Strife didn’t necessarily address the real problem. The late Sixties until the onset of the Eighties were characterised by very high inflation due to a complex of factors including the impact of devaluation, of the fall in Sterling on making the currency free-floating, then the Barber Book and the big hikes in oil prices. Even before the oil crisis, inflation had risen to nearly ten percent, then with the oil price rises it shot up to a peak of 25%. Consider the CUMULATIVE rise year-after-year over the WHOLE period, and how that destroyed wage packets, and it’s pretty sobering. 1970 - 6.1% inflation 1971 - 9.5 1972 - 6.6 1973 - 8.8 1974 - 16.7 1975 - 25 1976 - 16.9 1978 - 16.2 1979 - 8.4 1980 - 12.5 As it happens, the unions did a deal with labour, where they greatly restricted the pay awards, first restricting them to 10%, and then to 5%, in an effort to bear down on the inflation. At the expense of their members’ ability to cope with the inflation. In turn this did see inflation drop to 8%, but then there was the second oil price spike, inflation shot up again, and the unions couldn’t hold the line anymore, as wages got trashed, even more. Fundamentally, the problem is governments’ desire to control inflation through restricting wages, instead of doing more to curtail the prices. A problem that we are revisiting now. But while some may point the finger at the working class unions in the 70s, despite the fact that they did actually act to bring inflation down at a cost to their members, there may be a relative silence about some of the more middle-class unions striking now. Those inflation figures for the late 70s don't look correct to me. Most of 1978 saw RPI inflation in high single figures - 8% - 10% - before rising again in 1979 - particularly the second half of the year. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Jul 10, 2023 19:09:34 GMT
In Place of Strife didn’t necessarily address the real problem. The late Sixties until the onset of the Eighties were characterised by very high inflation due to a complex of factors including the impact of devaluation, of the fall in Sterling on making the currency free-floating, then the Barber Book and the big hikes in oil prices. Even before the oil crisis, inflation had risen to nearly ten percent, then with the oil price rises it shot up to a peak of 25%. Consider the CUMULATIVE rise year-after-year over the WHOLE period, and how that destroyed wage packets, and it’s pretty sobering. 1970 - 6.1% inflation 1971 - 9.5 1972 - 6.6 1973 - 8.8 1974 - 16.7 1975 - 25 1976 - 16.9 1978 - 16.2 1979 - 8.4 1980 - 12.5 As it happens, the unions did a deal with labour, where they greatly restricted the pay awards, first restricting them to 10%, and then to 5%, in an effort to bear down on the inflation. At the expense of their members’ ability to cope with the inflation. In turn this did see inflation drop to 8%, but then there was the second oil price spike, inflation shot up again, and the unions couldn’t hold the line anymore, as wages got trashed, even more. Fundamentally, the problem is governments’ desire to control inflation through restricting wages, instead of doing more to curtail the prices. A problem that we are revisiting now. But while some may point the finger at the working class unions in the 70s, despite the fact that they did actually act to bring inflation down at a cost to their members, there may be a relative silence about some of the more middle-class unions striking now. Those inflation figures for the late 70s don't look correct to me. Most of 1978 saw RPI inflation in high single figures - 8% - 10% - before rising again in 1979 - particularly the second half of the year. Yeah I think you’re right Graham - from memory it was 8% in 1978 not in ‘79, so I may have copied them wrong, I shall check… EDIT: yes if you look at what you quoted I missed out 1977!* (Makes the inflation even worse when you revise the figures!) 1970 - 6.1% inflation 1971 - 9.5 1972 - 6.6 1973 - 8.8 1974 - 16.7 1975 - 25 1976 - 16.9 1977 - 16.2 1978 - 8.4 1979 - 12.5 1980 - 16.4 * (I have revised the original figures up thread now) |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 19:11:10 GMT
Indeed. I am a bit bemused why I need to provide my personal details to the government before downloading pornography. Just what are they going to do with that once they have collected a register of everyone gay in the UK? |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,352
|
Post by Danny on Jul 10, 2023 19:15:10 GMT
Feltham young offenders institute which contains young people who have actually committed a crime has murals on the walls, but apparently young children traumatised by a situation they had no control of don't deserve the same basic level of consideration. Are you sure? They could be painting them over as we speak. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 10, 2023 19:27:56 GMT
Those inflation figures for the late 70s don't look correct to me. Most of 1978 saw RPI inflation in high single figures - 8% - 10% - before rising again in 1979 - particularly the second half of the year. Yeah I think you’re right Graham - from memory it was 8% in 1978 not in ‘79, so I may have copied them wrong, I shall check… EDIT: yes if you look at what you quoted I missed out 1977!* (Makes the inflation even worse when you revise the figures!) 1970 - 6.1% inflation 1971 - 9.5 1972 - 6.6 1973 - 8.8 1974 - 16.7 1975 - 25 1976 - 16.9 1977 - 16.2 1978 - 8.4 1979 - 12.5 1980 - 16.4 * (I have revised the original figures up thread now) In the past many Tory commentators peddled the myth that Thatcher inherited 25% inflation in May 1979. In fact RPI inflation at that time was 10.2% - slightly lower than it is at present! |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 10, 2023 19:29:52 GMT
If we more or less agree that our electoral system props up our essentially two party system, sustaining it way beyond its natural obsolescence, then voting in such a system requires you to essentially game it. To me, it's a bit like a game of snooker where, if you're any good at it, you try and think maybe three or four shots ahead. What ball do I pot first to get me in the best position to pot another. And on it goes.
For example, if I desperately want a genuinely socialist party to vote for, which a giant political monolith like Labour will never provide, and maybe never has, how do I get there when I know that voting for such a party like the Trade Union and Socialist Alliance under FPTP will be a wasted vote. A representative voting system might well give me such a party, however. One that can obtain representation and exert influence in its own right without having to live inside a broad church centre-left party that is often ambivalent and multi-faceted. You want a party that can make an unequivocal socialist offer to voters. Well, this is where the snooker comes in. You survey the system you have to operate in, and the party political reality that it entails, and you quickly realise that only one of two parties can form, or lead, a government. Which one of the them is more likely to open a pathway, however convoluted, to constitutional and electoral reform? That's your first potential shot in the frame. The red ball looks the better ball to play than the blue, even if I really want to have a shot at the black. Black ball is snookered though. For now.
Of course, other shots are possible and may be based on unromantic and expedient logic about least worst scenarios. At least you're playing the game though and tilting things as best you can your way.
I won't flog the baize tabled game metaphor to death, and the example I've given about a Socialist Party equally applies to getting green, nationalist or right wing political interests into play in the bipolar Tory v Labour game we're obliged to play for now, but it seems to me that voters only have two choices in British politics as they are currently configured.
You play the game or you sit it out and let others play it for you.
P.S. Tactical voting is more billiards than snooker. An in-off shot can gain points, as can a clever canon. It's probably a more cerebral and skilful game than snooker, but less popular!! It games FPTP quite well though.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 20:10:56 GMT
crossbat11“ I won't flog the baize tabled game metaphor to death” Too late.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 10, 2023 20:12:58 GMT
crossbat11“ I won't flog the baize tabled game metaphor to death” Too late. That's why I switched to billiards. Same table, different game. Fred Davis was very good at it, by the way. Back in the day. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 20:13:59 GMT
Only twelve Danny posts so far on this page. Wotta slacker.
Re FPTP and gaming the system: what would make it even more fun is to announce new regulations in which third past the post (TPTP) is the winner. Hours of fun - nearly as good as snooker.
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 10, 2023 20:17:30 GMT
Only twelve Danny posts so far on this page. Wotta slacker. Re FPTP and gaming the system: what would make it even more fun is to announce new regulations in which third past the post (TPTP) is the winner. Hours of fun - nearly as good as snooker. Why third place when we already have fourth past the post (FPTP) in place? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 20:23:46 GMT
Only twelve Danny posts so far on this page. Wotta slacker. Re FPTP and gaming the system: what would make it even more fun is to announce new regulations in which third past the post (TPTP) is the winner. Hours of fun - nearly as good as snooker. Why third place when we already have fourth past the post (FPTP) in place? Sometimes there are only three players. You have to be sensible about this Batty. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jul 10, 2023 20:24:29 GMT
If we more or less agree that our electoral system props up our essentially two party system, sustaining it way beyond its natural obsolescence, then voting in such a system requires you to essentially game it. To me, it's a bit like a game of snooker where, if you're any good at it, you try and think maybe three or four shots ahead. What ball do I pot first to get me in the best position to pot another. And on it goes. For example, if I desperately want a genuinely socialist party to vote for, which a giant political monolith like Labour will never provide, and maybe never has, how do I get there when I know that voting for such a party like the Trade Union and Socialist Alliance under FPTP will be a wasted vote. A representative voting system might well give me such a party, however. One that can obtain representation and exert influence in its own right without having to live inside a broad church centre-left party that is often ambivalent and multi-faceted. You want a party that can make an unequivocal socialist offer to voters. Well, this is where the snooker comes in. You survey the system you have to operate in, and the party political reality that it entails, and you quickly realise that only one of two parties can form, or lead, a government. Which one of the them is more likely to open a pathway, however convoluted, to constitutional and electoral reform? That's your first potential shot in the frame. The red ball looks the better ball to play than the blue, even if I really want to have a shot at the black. Black ball is snookered though. For now. Of course, other shots are possible and may be based on unromantic and expedient logic about least worst scenarios. At least you're playing the game though and tilting things as best you can your way. I won't flog the baize tabled game metaphor to death, and the example I've given about a Socialist Party equally applies to getting green, nationalist or right wing political interests into play in the bipolar Tory v Labour game we're obliged to play for now, but it seems to me that voters only have two choices in British politics as they are currently configured. You play the game or you sit it out let others play it for you. The problem with this game is that anyone who gets a majority- be it Sunak, Starmer, Corbyn, Davey, would never be much interested in PR as they would not want to lose the chance to pursue their agenda by having to deal with other parties. Even with the idea that most of the time the Tories would be out of power (maybe Tory/UKIP in 2015) is less important to them than having full control for their moment for making a difference (even if the biggest long term making a difference would be introducing PR). So hung parliament is about the best gaming you can do but no-one can game this in reality because very few people are playing this game. And anyway you'd need an accuracy beyond anything a tactical voting website could give you who would have to have 10 million followers and decide which random constituencies would best produce a hung parliament- so the current scenario of a big Labour overall majority you'd be saying you should vote Tory in random Lab-Con marginals which no-one in this game would ever want to do. One further thought, and it does depend on how serious you think the worldwide economy is going to get and how serious global warming is going to be, but the Labour Party went from zero seats to a minority government within about 20 years- of course much of this was down to the franchise changes as well as being a very minority government, but two party systems do not necessarily stay the same forever, especially during a crisis. I do wonder on alternative scenarios for the Lib Dems had they not gone into coalition with the Tories- could they have become a dominant party by clever positioning in a Confidence and supply arrangement? I'm hesitant to predict end of days or Mad Max because these things haven't happened in my lifetime and crises in my lifetime have resolved themselves, but these things have happened in the past and even then they could be resolved because it economic policy could resolve them- less easy with a world population and finite resources that we have now. The boomer complacency is certainly coming to an end for the generations that are following on behind them and sometimes I do feel that comments on this site can miss the fact that things in the world aren't really that stable. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 10, 2023 20:51:03 GMT
From ElectionMapsUK
|| 10 Days Till The Triple By-Election Bonanza in Selby & Ainsty, Somerton & Frome, and Uxbridge & South Ruislip!
Current Odds (via
@oddschecker
)
Selby:
🌹 1/5
🌳 3/1
🔶 66/1
Somerton:
🔶 1/25
🌳 10/1
🌹 25/1
Uxbridge:
🌹 1/14
🌳 12/1
🔶 150/1
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on Jul 10, 2023 20:53:21 GMT
All credit to her
|
|
alurqa
Member
Freiburg im Breisgau's flag
Posts: 781
|
Post by alurqa on Jul 10, 2023 21:03:39 GMT
Only twelve Danny posts so far on this page. Wotta slacker. Yes, but credit where credit's due: he's keeping them terse. I think I've read all of them. Keep it up! |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 10, 2023 21:33:20 GMT
shevii
Well, I suppose nothing is forever, and we should always expect the unexpected, especially in politics, but I was framing my comments within the balance of probabilities and the likelihood of having to accept the status quo for now.
I share some of your cynicism about politicians saying one thing when in opposition and then doing something different in government, particularly with something like electoral reform, but if we accept, which I think we should, that it's more likely to be pursued by a Labour government than a Tory one, then the voting choice for a PR advocate becomes obvious.
Especially when you consider the existing levels of support for electoral reform within Labour's parliamentary party, membership and trade union sponsors. I am a member of LCER, Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform, and the pressure on the party leadership is gathering and won't go away.
I would expect the Labour Conference in a couple of month's time to keep this pressure up on the party leadership.
In the Tory Party, our alternative governing party, no such pressure does, or will ever, exist.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,571
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jul 10, 2023 21:42:57 GMT
Just a thought on the supposed immovability of the FPTP system. Since I reached adulthood in 1979 this has been the range of support for the 4 major parties:
Vote share:
Conservatives 30.7% (97) to 43.6& (19) - 12.9% range
Labour 27.6% (83) to 43.2% (97) - 15.6&
Lib/SDP/Lib Dem - 7.9% (15) to 25.4% (83) - 17.5%
SNP (Scotland only) - 11.7% (83) to 50.0% (15) - 38.3%
Seats:
Conservatives 165 (97) to 397 (83) - 232 range
Labour: 202 (19) to 419 (97) - 217
Lib/SDP/Lib Dem 8 (15) to 62 (05) - 54
SNP - 2 (83) to 56 (15) - 54
You could add the UKIP and Green surges to that. Things can move under FPTP in a major way and sometimes quite rapidly. It is not impossible that one or both of the current major parties could collapse and be replaced, perhaps leading to a scenario where the abandonment of FPTP becomes possible. It nearly happened in 1917-18 after all.
|
|
