pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 6, 2023 13:36:31 GMT
For completeness I will note that there were 18 local government by-elections in Councils not holding elections on Thursday (all in England as it happens). For some reason one has not counted yet (Suffolk CC, Felixstowe Coastal) but a summary of the other 17 is as follows: Conservatives defended 11 - held 8, 2 losses to Liberal Democrats, 1 loss to Labour Labour defended 4 - all Labour holds Lib Dems defended 1 - Green gain Ashfield Independents defended one - held Details here if anyone wants them: vote-2012.proboards.com/thread/16915/local-council-elections-4th-2023 |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 6, 2023 13:39:00 GMT
moby - "Llafur's achievements in Wales tend to be ignored on here." Understood, and agreed, but not really relevant to my point. I also wasn't referring directly or exclusively to Scotland either. The issues of a dominant England with a constitution that, pretty much uniquely amongst democratic countries around the world, hands total power to whoever can secure a majority in one chamber of parliament that is selected on a FPTP system, is the issue I am looking at. Arguably, I think a strong case can be made that Wales, NI and Scotland have each had better standards of governance than England since the devolved settlements, (although none are perfect). That's not an accident. The system mitigates towards better governance, precisely because of the electoral system and the distributions of powers. This is probably best seen in NI, where history dictated that a simple majority was unworkable, so some form of broader representative democracy was demanded. Use FPTP for Stormont and the Troubles would still be ongoing. The point is that England suffers from this as much as anyone else in the UK. Both main English parties are unwieldy coalitions that by rights should be broken down into more homogeneous parts, but they are each trapped in uncomfortable marriages of convenience because splitting is death under FPTP. Then, those two unwieldy blocs are forced to garner votes from a small fraction of potential swing voters, creating conditions whereby relatively small groups of voters can exert overwhelming influence on political outcomes in not just England, but because of the constitution, the entire UK. I am firmly of the view that the UK has outlived it's usefulness, and needs to be broken apart and remodeled. I haven't yet personally discounted the idea of a continued UK of some form - a Federation of the United Kingdom*, perhaps - but the current status quo is too dysfunctional to be allowed to survive. *On reflection, the United Kingdom Federation might be better, once you think of the acronyms.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 6, 2023 13:41:02 GMT
And how about billionaire monarchs paying for their coronations while we are at it. Ah you can't really do that. Either you have a monarch and fund it fully, or you get rid. Personally, I would favour the latter (although, as even Jeremy Corbyn agreed, it is not the highest priority issue). However, there is a middle path. The Scandinavian monarchies seem to be run much cheaper. In fact all the European monarchies seem to manage with less pomp and fewer palaces and flunkies. |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on May 6, 2023 13:46:23 GMT
One wonders if the idea will penetrate the brains of Starmer, Davey and the Green leadership, that not running candidates against each other pays dividends? Nope, thought not. Surely the enormity of the results in Bracknell Forest will not be lost on the movers and shakers of the various parties. And I suspect the results will make the blood run cold in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party. The previous council was: CON 37 LAB 4 LD 1 LAB put up 24 candidates and 22 won, LD put up 12 (7 won) and Green 7 (2 won). CON contested every ward and won 10. The vagaries of FPTP can be astonishing. CON got 45% of the vote and 10 seats. LAB took 32% and won 22 seats, giving them overall control of the council. Some food for thought there, methinks. democratic.bracknell-forest.gov.uk/mgElectionResults.aspx?ID=109&RPID=61655469The biggest beneficiary of 'formalised' (non-compete) tactical voting would be LAB, hence LAB folks will obviously push it. However, if it was formalised then LAB would win a massive majority and hence deny LDEM the one thing LDEM want: PR (although they might settle for a few red briefcases again). So if LDEM agree to formalised tactical voting they would never get what they want (Bracknell Forest being a good example of giving LAB a majority). Starmer has also said he has been long opposed to PR so LDEM want a hung parliament where they are king-maker and can force Starmer into an 'O'-turn. Greens: Unless LAB(+LDEM) decide to give Greens a clear run at a few seats (eg Bristol West, the two seats in Mid Suffolk, etc) then Greens would be expected to 'give way' in every seat (and LAB might even think they can take back the one Green seat: Brighton Pavillon). So nothing in it for Greens either. 'Localised' pacts already occur and could be expanded. EG SW.Eng was interesting in the LEs. LDEM did well in their former 'heartland', yet seat prediction models place LAB as the most likely ABCON party in most of SW.Eng. I think it is fair to say that LAB didn't make much effort in the Tiverton and Honiton by-election so LDEM won that one but EC reckon CON will take it back in GE'24, with LAB second: www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Tiverton%20and%20HonitonCould be more 'localised' pacts and IIRC myself/others have split out SW.Eng between LAB and LDEM in the past but at the moment I doubt LDEM would want to give LAB a clear run in most seats in SW.Eng and I doubt LAB want to allow LDEM to regain too many toeholds in their old heartland. What is perhaps of most benefit to LAB (and ABCON) is to allow folks to continue to simply 'work it out for themselves' without being 'prompted' by HQs or the tactical voting websites that pop up (unless those websites avoid the 'tricky' seats where its not clear who is the best placed ABCON party). For LDEM then they want LAB to win most seats but not an OM which will mean they'll want to be 'CON enablers' in lots of seats in GE'24 - although they obviously won't admit that! |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 6, 2023 13:56:20 GMT
moby - "Llafur's achievements in Wales tend to be ignored on here." Understood, and agreed, but not really relevant to my point. I also wasn't referring directly or exclusively to Scotland either. The issues of a dominant England with a constitution that, pretty much uniquely amongst democratic countries around the world, hands total power to whoever can secure a majority in one chamber of parliament that is selected on a FPTP system, is the issue I am looking at. Arguably, I think a strong case can be made that Wales, NI and Scotland have each had better standards of governance than England since the devolved settlements, (although none are perfect). That's not an accident. The system mitigates towards better governance, precisely because of the electoral system and the distributions of powers. This is probably best seen in NI, where history dictated that a simple majority was unworkable, so some form of broader representative democracy was demanded. Use FPTP for Stormont and the Troubles would still be ongoing. The point is that England suffers from this as much as anyone else in the UK. Both main English parties are unwieldy coalitions that by rights should be broken down into more homogeneous parts, but they are each trapped in uncomfortable marriages of convenience because splitting is death under FPTP. Then, those two unwieldy blocs are forced to garner votes from a small fraction of potential swing voters, creating conditions whereby relatively small groups of voters can exert overwhelming influence on political outcomes in not just England, but because of the constitution, the entire UK. I am firmly of the view that the UK has outlived it's usefulness, and needs to be broken apart and remodeled. I haven't yet personally discounted the idea of a continued UK of some form - a Federation of the United Kingdom*, perhaps - but the current status quo is too dysfunctional to be allowed to survive. *On reflection, the United Kingdom Federation might be better, once you think of the acronyms. Three-quarters of a like from me. I agree with everything except the "broken apart bit" as if it were then that would be the final outcome - it couldn't be put back together. I think it is sufficient to put England on the same basis as the other nations with its own parliament elected by a proportional system (I would prefer STV, but that's a point of detail). The UK parliament would then comprise representatives drawn from the four national parliaments and deal with only UK wide issues, such as defence, foreign policy and some budget matters. Run that for a while, see how it goes and then if Northern Ireland wants to merge with the Republic (probably inevitable at some point) and/or Scotland, Wales or (for that matter) England want to become independent, then that would be their right. I suspect this type of arrangement would remove a lot of the current tensions between the UK nations anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 6, 2023 14:31:56 GMT
Three-quarters of a like from me. I agree with everything except the "broken apart bit" as if it were then that would be the final outcome - it couldn't be put back together. I think it is sufficient to put England on the same basis as the other nations with its own parliament elected by a proportional system (I would prefer STV, but that's a point of detail). The UK parliament would then comprise representatives drawn from the four national parliaments and deal with only UK wide issues, such as defence, foreign policy and some budget matters. Run that for a while, see how it goes and then if Northern Ireland wants to merge with the Republic (probably inevitable at some point) and/or Scotland, Wales or (for that matter) England want to become independent, then that would be their right. I suspect this type of arrangement would remove a lot of the current tensions between the UK nations anyway. wouldn't have a problem with that, but the UK FPTP parties will never let it happen |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 6, 2023 15:45:39 GMT
Three-quarters of a like from me. I agree with everything except the "broken apart bit" as if it were then that would be the final outcome - it couldn't be put back together. I think it is sufficient to put England on the same basis as the other nations with its own parliament elected by a proportional system (I would prefer STV, but that's a point of detail). The UK parliament would then comprise representatives drawn from the four national parliaments and deal with only UK wide issues, such as defence, foreign policy and some budget matters. Run that for a while, see how it goes and then if Northern Ireland wants to merge with the Republic (probably inevitable at some point) and/or Scotland, Wales or (for that matter) England want to become independent, then that would be their right. I suspect this type of arrangement would remove a lot of the current tensions between the UK nations anyway. wouldn't have a problem with that, but the UK FPTP parties will never let it happen It certainly won't be easy, but worth noting that a majority of Labour members favour PR, the Trade Unions are starting to come round to it (many are already there) and the main problem is the element in the PLP who want the unchecked power than goes with a HoC majority in our unreformed constitution. A hung parliament where Labour depend on the Lib Dems remains the best chance of getting some movement on PR. In turn that would unlock many other possibilities, including the break-up of the current party system. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2023 16:00:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 6, 2023 16:23:26 GMT
It certainly won't be easy, but worth noting that a majority of Labour members favour PR, the Trade Unions are starting to come round to it (many are already there) and the main problem is the element in the PLP who want the unchecked power than goes with a HoC majority in our unreformed constitution. A hung parliament where Labour depend on the Lib Dems remains the best chance of getting some movement on PR. In turn that would unlock many other possibilities, including the break-up of the current party system. Sounds good. I go way back to 1974 when I studies Politics and History at Edinburgh Uni. I had Professor Cornford (ironically a champion of devolution and constitutional form later on) to write an essay for, and chose PR (I was the secretary of the Edinburgh Young Liberals but left with Peter Hain's mob over South Africa). I tried my damnedest to justify it but he took a red pen to most of it with a few caustic comments re the difficulties of passing legislation in hung/ coalition regimes. As a double irony the star student a couple of years above me was soon to be thee one and only student Rector, Gordon Brown, who 35 years later was to veto probably the best chance so far of the UK getting PR in negotiations over a possible coalition - from the Guardian at the time: "On Monday, the Lib Dems had demanded that the alternative vote system for electing MPs be passed by parliament – and that if an election occurred before a referendum, the election would be held under AV. They also wanted a fully proportional system to be offered in a referendum. Labour flatly refused to introduce AV without a referendum, saying it would be illegitimate." |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2023 16:34:56 GMT
London pensioner to get new hat  |
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on May 6, 2023 16:48:43 GMT
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 6, 2023 16:51:13 GMT
Typical bloody Royalists, keeping all the rain for themselves, when my garden needs it! Hrrmph.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 6, 2023 16:55:10 GMT
It certainly won't be easy, but worth noting that a majority of Labour members favour PR, the Trade Unions are starting to come round to it (many are already there) and the main problem is the element in the PLP who want the unchecked power than goes with a HoC majority in our unreformed constitution. A hung parliament where Labour depend on the Lib Dems remains the best chance of getting some movement on PR. In turn that would unlock many other possibilities, including the break-up of the current party system. Sounds good. I go way back to 1974 when I studies Politics and History at Edinburgh Uni. I had Professor Cornford (ironically a champion of devolution and constitutional form later on) to write an essay for, and chose PR (I was the secretary of the Edinburgh Young Liberals but left with Peter Hain's mob over South Africa). I tried my damnedest to justify it but he took a red pen to most of it with a few caustic comments re the difficulties of passing legislation in hung/ coalition regimes. As a double irony the star student a couple of years above me was soon to be thee one and only student Rector, Gordon Brown, who 35 years later was to veto probably the best chance so far of the UK getting PR in negotiations over a possible coalition - from the Guardian at the time: "On Monday, the Lib Dems had demanded that the alternative vote system for electing MPs be passed by parliament – and that if an election occurred before a referendum, the election would be held under AV. They also wanted a fully proportional system to be offered in a referendum. Labour flatly refused to introduce AV without a referendum, saying it would be illegitimate." |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 6, 2023 16:57:51 GMT
And not just a hat but the Sword of Temporal Justice, the Bracelets of Sincerity and Wisdom, the Sceptre of Good Governance, the Rod of Equity and Mercy and quite possibly the Gloves of Tax Avoidance, the Cloak of Invisibility and the Goblet of Fire - but I had lost the plot by that point. |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 6, 2023 16:59:49 GMT
pjw1961 - "I think it is sufficient to put England on the same basis as the other nations with its own parliament elected by a proportional system..." I don't. I'm not sure that many south and east of the borders actually understand the difference between 'England' and 'Britain'/'UK', and assume that the two are interchangeable. The fact is that they are, in the UK's political system, and that needs to change.
|
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on May 6, 2023 17:13:51 GMT
Ought to do something (like exercise and a healthy diet) to fix that double chin IMO but here's Sir Keith surrounded by Union Jacks speaking "on behalf of everyone at the Labour Party" in the lower clip versus the 'young' Keir's historic views. Fairly minor compared to some of his 'U-turns' but the anti-Starmer twitterverse do seem to have a lot of clips of Starmer from before he was trying to win support from CON'19 voters.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2023 17:14:25 GMT
pjw1961And his brother got the tax payer funded get out of jail free card.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2023 17:27:08 GMT
Once seen can never be unseen.  |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 6, 2023 17:27:25 GMT
Did that stupid oath of allegiance to Charlie go ahead?
|
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 6, 2023 17:29:16 GMT
I have reported this post. Not happy |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 6, 2023 17:34:37 GMT
oldnatMichael Gove couldn't get his Charlie so I think he uttered an oath!
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 6, 2023 17:36:18 GMT
While in Scotland, hundreds gathered at a Republican rally on Calton Hill and 20,000 demonstrated in Glasgow for indy, London seems to have descended into a police state. I noticed steve 's comment on what his old force has become. While the police are required to enforce the law, the way in which they do it is a matter for senior officers to determine.
|
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on May 6, 2023 17:53:14 GMT
Starmer-LAB is not my party but the discussion on 'hung parliament' scenarios shows some folks are aware that LAB didn't do as well as hoped - or claimed by Starmer. Hmm. Surely labour did very well indeed, and did meet expectations. Its a bit disingenuous to claim otherwise. Indeed. I think it was steve who reckoned that the biggest loser was the electoral calculus prediction model. Understating the Labour gains by about half was one of their better forecasts. They put the Tory losses at c300, so significantly out. And claiming overall losses for both LibDem and Green when both made healthy gains really showed up the shortcomings in their model. On that basis, a forecast of "hung parliament" from similar models might have to be taken with large quantities of sodium chloride |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,376
|
Post by neilj on May 6, 2023 17:56:51 GMT
Omnisus latest poll
I know Omnisus doesn't always have the best reputation, but they did quite well in their local election poll
|
|
|
|
Post by mandolinist on May 6, 2023 18:01:23 GMT
Now that's a step too far, can we have a little more Dacorum steve |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 6, 2023 18:01:57 GMT
pjw1961 - "I think it is sufficient to put England on the same basis as the other nations with its own parliament elected by a proportional system..." I don't. I'm not sure that many south and east of the borders actually understand the difference between 'England' and 'Britain'/'UK', and assume that the two are interchangeable. The fact is that they are, in the UK's political system, and that needs to change. But that is the point. The missing bit of the constitutional debate at the moment is England. Don't underestimate the resentments of a section of the English population concerning what they see as the unduly favourable treatment of the other nations. I know plenty of English nationalists convinced that their tax money goes to excessively support Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. They may be wrong and/or short sighted in their view, but they believe it and are resentful. Putting all four nations on exactly the same footing makes sense in defusing that. Note that my proposal negates the usual argument that an English parliament is excessive duplication with the UK one in Westminster. There would be the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish assemblies (by various names) and the UK wide assembly is drawn from them. No duplication needed. Oh, and no House of Lords. |
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,572
|
Post by pjw1961 on May 6, 2023 18:06:03 GMT
I know Omnisus doesn't always have the best reputation, but they did quite well in their local election poll They did very well on the local election party voting percentages but miles out on turnout. If it had really been 70% even I might have been in with a chance of winning  |
|
Mr Poppy
Member
Teaching assistant and now your elected PM
Posts: 3,774
|
Post by Mr Poppy on May 6, 2023 18:09:54 GMT
Hmm. Surely labour did very well indeed, and did meet expectations. Its a bit disingenuous to claim otherwise. Indeed. I think it was steve who reckoned that the biggest loser was the electoral calculus prediction model. Understating the Labour gains by about half was one of their better forecasts. They put the Tory losses at c300, so significantly out. And claiming overall losses for both LibDem and Green when both made healthy gains really showed up the shortcomings in their model. On that basis, a forecast of "hung parliament" from similar models might have to be taken with large quantities of sodium chloride I've gone back to ignoring some people who make stuff up but are you trying to say that EC's LE* model for LE results made BEFORE the results is the same as the GE 'forecast' made by Prof Curtice (for BBC) and Prof Thrasher (for Sky News) AFTER the results? NB There is still probably 18mths until a GE and IIRC the BBC (Curtice) numbers and comments have already been posted but for the other 'expert' (Thrasher for Sky News) see: * I admit to ignoring their LE forecast that someone posted before 4May as it was clearly bonkers but note their GE 'forecast' (based on recent opinion polling) is very different. If someone knows why EC made such a bonkers call on the LEs then can they post the info as it clearly wasn't based on recent opinion polls. FWIW then their most recent GE prediction below: |
|
|
|
Post by alec on May 6, 2023 18:34:55 GMT
pjw1961 - Think we might be talking at cross purposes here. You seem to be describing exactly what I am describing; all four nations to have their own parliaments and to manage their own affairs, coming together with defined, legally impregnable rights, to agree a common approach to shared issues under a federated system, where one nation cannot command the other three to bend to their will. An English parliament will rule the English, but would not be able to rule the Scottish, Welsh or Irish. That's all I'm asking for.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 6, 2023 18:36:51 GMT
|
|
