|
|
Post by RAF on Jul 10, 2023 21:45:07 GMT
Back to the weird and wonderful world of the Spanish General Election campaign.
Tonight there was a leaders debate between Pedro Sánchez, the PM and leader of PSOE (Labour) and Alberto Núñez Feijóo, the leader of the opposition Popular Party (Conservative).
The key take away seems to have been insults over support for extremists, with Feijóo lambasting Sánchez for benefiting from the support of EH Bildu (the political wing of now defunct Eta); whereas Sánchez focused on the PP sharing power in local government with the populist far right Vox.
The difficulty for both is that PSOE is highly unlikely to be able to retain power without at least the tacit support of EH Bildu and a swathe of other left leaning regional independence parties; where as there is no path to power for the PP without Vox.
The latest polling (the 40bB Prisa tracker in association with El País and SER) continues to have the race on a knife edge, with PSOE closing the gap on the PP and Vox opening some clear water in third ahead of PSOE's likely main coalition partners - the left win umbrella grouping Sumar.
Latest percentages:
PP 30.8
PsOE 29.7
Vox 15.2
Sumar 13
(Others not stated)
Seat estimates:
PP 125
PSOE 115
Vox 42
Sumar 36
Others 32 (likely 31 for the left coalition and 1 for the right coalition)
So left coalition: 182
Right coalition: 168
Of course the so called 'left coalition' would involve so many parties that it's eminently possible that it falls short of the magic number of 176. But even if so how does the right coalition get to 176?
|
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jul 10, 2023 22:12:18 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. What, as recently as 105 years ago? On that rate of recurrence, Haley's Comet may reappear in our skies before the next near death experience for our current electoral system! I jest, and your statistics are interesting in the way they illustrate some sizeable ranges in party vote share and representation. The only problem is that since the early 20th century this volatility hasn't altered the essential outcome of general elections. You end up with either a Tory PM or a Labour PM. Nowt else and I see nothing much changing in that regard any time soon |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jul 10, 2023 22:41:01 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 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. "In Place of Strife" was in 1969 before the years of inflation you cite. How do you know that its failure wasn't a contributory cause to inflation, particularly as the first OPEC price rise wasn't until 1973 and so would have affected the 1973 & 1974 inflation figures. Also there was the three-day week at the beginning of 1974. |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on Jul 10, 2023 22:43:17 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. What, as recently as 105 years ago? On that rate of recurrence, Haley's Comet may reappear in our skies before the next near death experience for our current electoral system! I jest, and your statistics are interesting in the way they illustrate some sizeable ranges in party vote share and representation. The only problem is that since the early 20th century this volatility hasn't altered the essential outcome of general elections. You end up with either a Tory PM or a Labour PM. Nowt else and I see nothing much changing in that regard any time soon That's not quite right though is it? The Labour Party effectively replaced the Liberals in the 1920's, and then slid back until the late 1930's. The change over happened quite quickly and very dramatically, as it did in Scotland with the SNP, although with a different electoral system. It could be argued that it is about tipping points, or black swan events, and when it tips it looks so inevitable that one wonders why it wasn't obvious beforehand. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jul 10, 2023 22:50:56 GMT
graham I'm not sure your argument about disappointment with Blair holds any water given the Blair government was re-elected with close to a 200 seat majority. In any case Starmer isn't a Blair, more's the pity. Blair was re-elected in 2001 on an appallingly low turnout of less than 60% - the lowest since the arrival of universal suffrage in 1928.People did not want the Tories back at that stage - but Labour voters were already abstaining in droves. On the other hand, it's not that surprising to see the lowest turnout come in what was probably also the most foregone election outcome? A combination of historically massive polling leads and (vitally) a prediction of a very similar outcome to the prior election would surely reduce motivation to go and vote whatever your view of the government was? No need to vote for them, no point in voting against, millions find more pressing things to do on the day. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 10, 2023 22:54:35 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. A belief in Electoral Reform and PR are not synonymous. Some of us support AV - but strongly oppose PR. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jul 10, 2023 23:00:24 GMT
Blair was re-elected in 2001 on an appallingly low turnout of less than 60% - the lowest since the arrival of universal suffrage in 1928.People did not want the Tories back at that stage - but Labour voters were already abstaining in droves. On the other hand, it's not that surprising to see the lowest turnout come in what was probably also the most foregone election outcome? A combination of historically massive polling leads and (vitally) a prediction of a very similar outcome to the prior election would surely reduce motivation to go and vote whatever your view of the government was? No need to vote for them, no point in voting against, millions find more pressing things to do on the day. It did suggest a significant lack of enthusiasm for Blair - and was a leading indicator of what lay ahead. In terms of vote share and party lead Blair's 2001 win was less impressive than the Thatcher victories of 1983 and 1987 - indeed his vote share lead was not so very much bigger than Major's 7.6% lead in 1992. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2023 23:24:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jul 10, 2023 23:27:32 GMT
On the other hand, it's not that surprising to see the lowest turnout come in what was probably also the most foregone election outcome? A combination of historically massive polling leads and (vitally) a prediction of a very similar outcome to the prior election would surely reduce motivation to go and vote whatever your view of the government was? No need to vote for them, no point in voting against, millions find more pressing things to do on the day. It did suggest a significant lack of enthusiasm for Blair - and was a leading indicator of what lay ahead. In terms of vote share and party lead Blair's 2001 win was less impressive than the Thatcher victories of 1983 and 1987 - indeed his vote share lead was not so very much bigger than Major's 7.6% lead in 1992. With the Tories and LibDems also both notably down in votes on 1997 (which was itself a relatively low turnout historically) then to me it suggests a lack of enthusiasm all round. I'm sure what you're alluding to played some part, but that does also seem to have been the apathy election for reasons well beyond what the Labour left felt about Blair. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 10, 2023 23:51:06 GMT
Times have certainly changed. I can remember the great Brian Close being dropped for making a 'rash shot' after making an heroic 70 against Hall and Griffiths when everyone else got blown away. Further discussion on the Sport thread if you're interested. Your memory is at fault. Close played all 5 tests of the 1963 series in which he made that 70 at Lords (2nd test). I suspect you are thinking of how he was rather unfairly blamed for England's defeat in the Old Trafford test of 1961 v Australia. Richie Benaud said Close was the only England batsman other than Dexter who worried him that day as having the potential to win the game for England. www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1961-61331/england-vs-australia-4th-test-62896/full-scorecardApologies, you are correct. I do remember that he was heavily criticised though. The establishment never liked him. Imagine sacking a captain after he'd won 6 of his 7 Tests. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 10, 2023 23:56:27 GMT
moby Crikey moby, that is a good post, certainly in terms of articulating my position on these matters. That's not to say some won't legitimately disagree with where you and I and others are coming from, but, from my perspective, you've nailed it. The hostility to Starmer from the right is predictable and understandable, but the depth of antagonism from the left is astonishing to me. The fact that these two spectrums of British politics are now making common cause on the issue is very disappointing when you think of the political and electoral consequences of derailing Starmer. The Tories want to derail him quite naturally, but what's in it for the Left? Surely a tepid social democratic government, if that's what they think Starmer will oversee, is better than the only viable electoral alternative to that which is yet another Tory-led Government? Maybe we live in a country and electoral system where tepid social democratic governments are the only non-Tory governments that ever get elected. That's Starmer's calculation I'm guessing, and I think he may be right. P.S. That's not to say either that a "tepid" social democratic government cannot and will not do good things and be the gateway to real change. My point is that the offer to the electorate is the key here. What gets you the ticket to the dance. Electoral politics has to be the priority for Starmer right now. To those people ideological purity is all that matters. They actually seem to want to just moan and rail against anyone who isn't far left compared to the population. Corbyn was likely to be the closest they'll ever get to power. They wouldn't know what to do if they did ever get in. A mindset of whining and complaining isn't what you need to be able to govern. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 0:03:04 GMT
moby Excellent post. But please don't lump those of us who consistently called out Brexit for the disastrous con job fantasy it always was and remains as being nihilistic. We understandably aren't remotely impressed with the make Brexit work bollocks still emerging from the Labour leadership. The only light on this front is that those spouting the b.s. aren't the hard of thinking cult members who took us into this mess. Reality and of course overwhelming public disillusionment with Brexit will probably make them change their approach. Ah the League of EU Loyalists strikes again. What is the alternative to 'make Brexit work'? Make Brexit not work? Rejoining (even if people voted for a party that offered that) would take years and the EU probably wouldn't want us back anyway. Whether it's good or bad at the moment is irrelevant. I personally haven't noticed any difference. The point is that at least for now the current situation is where we are and we need to make the best of it. Starmer is correct and realistic. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 0:05:35 GMT
I was referring to the 'Not My King' placards. Of course people can hold up whatever they like because we live in a civilised society. I was just saying that like so many other things lately it's a denial of an actual fact. And while we're on the subject, perhaps you could point to a society that you do consider to be civilised? For instance the Roman Civilisation, which it was compared to most of its neighbours. Yet slavery and conquest were an inherent part of it. In other words, no society or civilisation is perfect. Does your definition of civilisation exist anywhere apart from your fantasy world? So was I: metro.co.uk/2022/09/13/man-threatened-with-arrest-if-he-wrote-not-my-king-on-blank-sign-17362896/
If I'm living in a fantasy world, I want to wake up NOW.
That's a good idea. If you do wake up I think you'll see that we do indeed live in a civilised society even if it has faults. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 0:08:15 GMT
moby Crikey moby, that is a good post, certainly in terms of articulating my position on these matters. That's not to say some won't legitimately disagree with where you and I and others are coming from, but, from my perspective, you've nailed it. The hostility to Starmer from the right is predictable and understandable, but the depth of antagonism from the left is astonishing to me. The fact that these two spectrums of British politics are now making common cause on the issue is very disappointing when you think of the political and electoral consequences of derailing Starmer. The Tories want to derail him quite naturally, but what's in it for the Left? Surely a tepid social democratic government, if that's what they think Starmer will oversee, is better than the only viable electoral alternative to that which is yet another Tory-led Government? Maybe we live in a country and electoral system where tepid social democratic governments are the only non-Tory governments that ever get elected. That's Starmer's calculation I'm guessing, and I think he may be right. P.S. That's not to say either that a "tepid" social democratic government cannot and will not do good things and be the gateway to real change. My point is that the offer to the electorate is the key here. What gets you the ticket to the dance. Electoral politics has to be the priority for Starmer right now. "what's in it for the Left?" - I'm afraid for some though by no means all on the further left there's a revolutionary element to this and they are quite happy for the tories to remain in power and drag the country down and down as some of them believe only that will eventually force people into accepting more sudden, revolutionary change. In the meantime of course many would suffer but for some of these people it's more about an egotistical self-validation of their beliefs and 'means justifiying the ends' than concern about the effects on 'real people' to use a colinism. Most of them will be fairly economically cushioned from the effects themselves as well. It's alll about them, not about the country. All quite selfish and unpleasant. Revolutionaries have an interest in keeping people in a state of despair as that aids their revolutionary message. Just like Islamic fundamentalists. Totally agree with that. Nice change! I have made a similar point but as I'm working my way through I see that you beat me to it. It's good to agree with people wherever possible. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 0:10:35 GMT
Why should any left of centre voter feel the least bit enthused at the prospect of a period of warmed up bland Blairism? Err - because they might win an election? |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Jul 11, 2023 0:12:30 GMT
Just like the Scottish Nationalists. The comparison did occur to me but I thought it best to not say it! It says a lot about this particular corner of the internet that throwing Islamic fundamentalists into the argument can be the tactful option...  |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 0:16:25 GMT
Interesting take this morning on the nature of news. Last week saw the four highest day temperatures ever recorded in the world. But look over there orange confetti! Well it was bloody nippy here. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 0:43:53 GMT
p.s. what do folk think of Labour’s education proposals the other day? Oracy etc. I think if you have to use a word that few people have heard of to describe a policy it's a waste of time. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 0:52:16 GMT
* EG if LAB have a huge majority in your seat then I expect some might consider voting Green in GE'24. Some might consider RUK or stand as OMRLP. The only thing holding me back from the latter choice is that I'm not fond of dressing up in weird costumes, and even if I did, what to choose? The hat seems to be the main thing. Maybe a Davy Crockett hat? |
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Jul 11, 2023 1:08:42 GMT
It's an absolute nonsense to suggest there is a revolutionary purity among the left or that any significant number of left wingers prefer the Tories stay in power so the system crashes and burns. Maybe you got this idea from student days where one or two idiots might have put this forward as a theory? You're making excuses for a non existent offer from Labour to change anything. Of course public finances are in a mess and of course there has to be some recognition that Labour can't "do everything". That doesn't mean they have to ditch all the taxation pledges Starmer made when he was standing for Labour leadership. It's the exact same excuse Nick Clegg made for his choice to back austerity, an austerity that tanked the economy. Labour have committed to Tory tax and spending plans until there is "growth" and yet not just under the Tories in the UK but in much of Europe there has been virtually no growth since 2008. So people are going to suffer in exactly the same way they are doing under the Tories unless Labour makes an offer that changes the dynamics- why would it not be so? Exactly. This ideological purity stuff keeps coming up in relation to the Left's hostility towards Starmer's Labour and it just makes me think that people are either being deliberately disingenuous or they're not actually interesting in engaging with the substance of what are, by now, really well-rehearsed arguments. Lately, there's been a relentless hammering home of this message of "fiscal responsibility" from Labour. Both Streeting and Reeves have been at it over the last couple of days in the Guardian and Observer. For Streeting this took the form of "false hope is worse than no hope" (both seem about as useful as a chocolate teapot to me, Wes) and with Reeves it came accompanied with another baseless attack on the left, smearing Ken Loach as an anti-semite. Conveying a message that the last lot have messed up the public finances so we can't accomplish anything good wasn't an attractive proposition 13 years ago from the Tories. I'm not sure why it's any better coming from Labour now. I might not be enthused by a party standing on a platform of tepid social democracy but I'd take it at this juncture. However, I truly don't think that's an accurate description of Starmer's Labour. They are not, in any meaningful sense, a LOC party at this moment in time. |
|
|
|
Post by ptarmigan on Jul 11, 2023 1:10:18 GMT
I think this is a truly bizarre article. The author talks about the national-populist tide sweeping across Europe, but that's surely exactly what Britain's been experiencing for the past few years. What's Johnson if not a national-populist? He states, After Brexit, Britain was supposed to float adrift of our liberal and progressive neighbours, as we became a gloomy island buffeted by storms of imperial nostalgia, xenophobia and nativism. Not only would the British economy collapse, we were told that the venerable institutions of British parliamentary democracy would rapidly degenerate into irresponsible right-wing extremism, leading us to “Weimar Britain”. with apparently no hint of irony. Someone might like to remind him that we have an ailing economy and a government that has continually sought to undermine public institutions and been comfortable fanning the flames of right-wing extremism by pursuing an incredibly hostile anti-migrant agenda. He cites Italy pursuing its culture-war policies against gay parents but fails to mention any parallels in the UK where the government whips up hostility against trans people. The claim that Far from stimulating populism, Brexit destroyed it, torpedoing both Ukip and the Brexit Party, by removing their sole reason for existing is only superficially true, as the Conservative Party essentially subsumed the Brexiteer populists, purging the more moderate One Nation Tories from its ranks. The reason why Britain might seem to be moving in a different direction is because we've had our own brush with national-populism and *shock horror* it's entirely failed to deliver on what it was promising. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 1:12:47 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. Interesting metaphor but of course there are exceptions. For instance the stance of the top three (at least) parties being in favour of the EU when around 50% of the electorate were against it led to the rise of UKIP. Because of the PR system for EU elections they got a lot of publicity especially when they got more votes and seats than any other party in 2014 (and even more in 2019). If we ever did get a form of PR for GEs (highly unlikely in my lifetime IMO) there might be a nasty shock for the traditional parties if they were challenged by a party whose main policy was restoration of the death sentence for instance. There might be a left-wing equivalent too. The cosy tacit agreement about trendy viewpoints could be seriously challenged. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 1:13:55 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. Joe was better. Back in the day. |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 1:18:09 GMT
The latter obviously. EDIT: Apologies for the multiple posts but I don't live on this site and am forced by my religion to refute every bit of leftie nonsense before I retire for the night/rewatch Game of Thrones. They certainly knew how to rule. I think my role model is the Ice King even though he lost in the end. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jul 11, 2023 1:28:31 GMT
What, as recently as 105 years ago? On that rate of recurrence, Haley's Comet may reappear in our skies before the next near death experience for our current electoral system! I jest, and your statistics are interesting in the way they illustrate some sizeable ranges in party vote share and representation. The only problem is that since the early 20th century this volatility hasn't altered the essential outcome of general elections. You end up with either a Tory PM or a Labour PM. Nowt else and I see nothing much changing in that regard any time soon That's not quite right though is it? The Labour Party effectively replaced the Liberals in the 1920's, and then slid back until the late 1930's. The change over happened quite quickly and very dramatically, as it did in Scotland with the SNP, although with a different electoral system. It could be argued that it is about tipping points, or black swan events, and when it tips it looks so inevitable that one wonders why it wasn't obvious beforehand. Ok, but if you're talking about the potential demise of the Tories as a major electoral force who will replace them? Will Labour become the new centre-right party and someone else (possibly LibDems but possibly not) become the left-wing choice? If there is a centre point in politics by definition 50% of voters are on each side of the line. At present RUK are the only significant right-wing challengers. If the Tories did collapse I suspect most would move there. Voters aren't all suddenly going to become lefties because the Tories get hammered. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,630
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 11, 2023 5:37:46 GMT
On the realignment of politics.
I would be delighted to see the demise of the Tories with a share of their electorate going to whatever faragist populist racist sect exists at the time, under the current first past the post system this is likely to produce no parliamentary representation or at most one or two seats in places such as Skegness.
Meanwhile the less delusional Tories can split between the available alternatives, the let's make Brexit work bollocks with its red cherry on the top Labour party or the more progressive and internationalist Liberal Democrats, I would obviously prefer a situation , if we don't have a fair voting system where Labour replace the corrupt shower that is the current iteration of the Tories as the centre right alternative.
It's entirely possible that the next election will see the demise of the Tories of course the ludicrous over representation for the largest party produced by fptp in this situation is likely to mean Labour with around 45% of the votes receives around 80% of the seats in England and Wales.which is far from optimal and ensures the tyranny of the minority continues.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,630
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 11, 2023 5:45:04 GMT
As events develop the latest media hunt the celebrity nonce alternative to the news appears to be being exposed as possibly scurrilous nonsense. There will of course be no reflection by the various outlets on the nature of fact checking before publication after all click bait is click bait. Meanwhile sorry you were a bit chilly mercian , the world however wasn't with the four hottest days probably in the last 120,000 years all occurring last week. This event is what's known by climate change scientists as " being totally screwed ". |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,630
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 11, 2023 5:57:38 GMT
Interesting to consider how low would Tory representation in parliament have to go before they were considered a permanently spent force.
Anything over 150 would I suspect maintain normal two party b.s..
Under 100 and particularly if it's accompanied by competing for main opposition party status could do it.
Of course we will then have the irony of toryites complaining about the inequities of fptp. if the party gets 25% of the vote and less than 100 seats while not giving a toss when the lib dems with 25% of the vote received around 50 seats or the Greens with a fifth of this won just one.
Labour will declare an overwhelming mandate based on 55% voting for other parties and the merry go round trundles on.
|
|
|
|
Post by alec on Jul 11, 2023 6:14:21 GMT
Ah, those were the days.
I well remember the dozy Brexiters, lecturing us how labour shortages would lead to wage inflation, and how that was a Good Thing. Yes, we mentioned inflation, but of course - that wasn't anything to worry our little heads about.
Now, we have the prospect of our hard Brexiter supporting Prime Minister telling the nation that high wage settlements are a Bad Thing, because they...lead to inflation.
Whatever next?.
I expect someone's going to start claiming Brexiters lied!
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,630
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jul 11, 2023 6:29:43 GMT
alecIt was more fun when Crayola man was regularly posting to explain how it was all really Danny Alexander's fault.
|
|
