|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 9:04:11 GMT
I think this is the dilemma for the tories If they move even further to the right to placate Reform types, they will haemorrhage even more votes to Labour and other left parties A straight switch of a vote for Labour is far more damaging electorally than one to Reform Met and talked to plenty of those direct Tory to Labour switchers in Tamworth. They didn't quite outnumber the Tory stay at homes, but it was encouraging to hear the "time for a change" mood gathering momentum That's the sentiment that gets rid of the incumbents. Much of the rest of electoral politics is gloss and bollocks in comparison.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 13, 2024 9:16:08 GMT
Excellent work & I'm glad my off-the-cuff & indeed careless remark has found you an occupation for these long, cold winter evenings. Of course, whatever the final results of yr research, which I look forward to eagerly, in the end, 1997 was a wholly exceptional election. It was a year of Labour candidates leapfrogging. "We shall not see its like again". Or at least I don't think I will. Besides there is a pretty long gap between '83 & '97. Also 1983 was another exceptional year in which the SDP won almost as many votes as Labour. Does voting for an entirely new party count as tactical voting? In how many seates were Labour pushed into 3rd place by the SDP? Um. You will forgive my suspicion of a methodology which compares 2 exceptional years. "To use one looks like a misfortune, to use two looks likes carelessness." Tactical voting is a clumsy & unpredictable instrument used chiefly by Lib-Dem & Labour voters, though it usually asks more of the former than the latter?, to increase the representation of the sadly divided progressive forces in British elections. Its cause is FPTP. That system seems, in turn, to be the main cause of why in my lifetime -- I was born in '50 -- we have to 23 years of Labour government, 46 years of Tory, & 5 years of a Tory-dominated Coalition. (Tactical voting ironically is said delivered the coup de grace to the Lib-Dems in 2015, when many former Lib-Dem voters in Southern & esp South-west constitutecis switched to the Tories to avoid a Miiliband-led government. There's another research project for you.) I tried to broaden the debate as to ask yet again why Labour has been as wedded to FPTP as the Tories, despite the fact that it has favoured the Tories so much more than themselves. A debate which obviously didn't interest you. I have voted Labour in every election since 1979, when scenting the horror that was to come I finally turned out. FPTP has served the country badly. Tactical voting has done little more than ameliorate an undemocratic system, one which is pretty well unique to the UK. Finally, in '83 which you have chosen for unexplained reaons & '87 the combined Lab & SDP vte was 53%. It was, as usual, FPTP which saw the Tories home. PS. I now see my worthy constituent, crossbat11 is enthused that the QT has raised the same subject. PPS. I hv removed the head from yr doll & am about the attack it with needles of the size I once saw someone injected with botox. Good wriggling, but the fact is that your statement "Once you relegate Labour to 3rd place, they can never recover," is entirely untrue as I have demonstrated and no amount of obfuscation about dates impacts that fact. Incidentally, those improvements in Labour fortunes almost nothing to do with tactical voting but rather moves from unpopular leaders and programmes to electable ones. As to FPTP and PR - I support the latter, and have done since I became aware of it in 1979. I have been a member of the Electoral Reform Society since 1990 and the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform since 1997. The reason I joined Labour in the first place was Blair's promise to hold a referendum on electoral reform pre-1997 - a promise he broke, so that the Jenkins commission proposals sat on the shelf. In is untrue to say the Labour Party opposes PR, given that the Party conference has voted in favour. Even the Trade Unions have come round to the idea. The problem is with the Labour leadership and a majority of MPs. They remain wedded to the idea of periodically wielding the near absolute power that a Westminster majority yields you, at least in theory. I remain in favour of PR simply because it is right to fairly reflect votes. However, it should not be assumed the left would be in power very often as a result. The Lib/SDP Alliance would likely have preferred a moderate (i.e. non-Thatcher) Conservative Party in the 1980s over Labour, just as Clegg was happy to form a coalition with Cameron. The Lib Dems are not to be trusted in that respect. And in current times PR would produce a sizable far-right block of MPs (RefUK, etc - UKIP would have had about 80 seats in 2015), and the lesson from our continental neighbours seems to be that the main RoC party is generally happy to go into coalition with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2024 10:12:45 GMT
Reeves watch ( cont)
From interview with The Times today-before she flies off to Davos & chats with JP Morgan & Goldfilled Sacks.:-
"Rachel Reeves has pledged that Labour will oversee a “revolution” in home ownership by opening the door to 25-year fixed-rate mortgages for millions of people." ( no state intervention-the sector to facilitate )
"Reeves indicated that Labour would support any cuts to income tax introduced by the government in the spring budget, as long as they were within her party’s fiscal rules."
"She said that Labour would not support cuts to inheritance tax."
"She suggested that Labour would not raise any taxes beyond those it has already announced: a crackdown on non-domiciled taxpayers who live in the UK, the closure of a private equity tax loophole and imposing VAT and business rates on private schools. “Those [three tax rises] are the tax increases that an incoming Labour government will introduce,” she said. “We don’t need other tax increases … Those are the things we will go into the election with.”"
"Reeves explicitly ruled out any wealth taxes and any increase in income tax thresholds and capital gains tax. “It is important we encourage wealth creation and entrepreneurship,” she said."
"She suggested that Labour was poised to scale back one of its flagship pledges, to invest £28 billion a year in green infrastructure. Labour would “have to do less” if Tory spending commitments meant there was less money to spend, she said. Reeves said that Labour’s pledge included £10 billion already committed by the government. “Nobody is talking, in the Labour side, about investing an additional £28 billion a year,” she said."
"She insisted that Labour was confident it would still hit its target of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030, highlighting the importance of private investment and planning reform to make building renewable energy infrastructure easier."
"Reeves suggested that she had no choice but to accept the assumption that public spending will rise by just 1 per cent overall from 2025, meaning significant cuts to unprotected departments. Asked if she would increase public spending, she said: “An incoming government doesn’t choose its inheritance. I have been really clear we are going to stick to our fiscal rules.”"
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 11:00:53 GMT
pjw1961
Like you, I've been on board the sizeable Electoral Reform bus within Labour for some time. I think its momentum, no pun intended, and direction of travel (apologies for lapsing into corpospeak) is unstoppable. It's inevitable in my view that the party, either in opposition, or more likely in government, will adopt it as policy. It may well be part of a much wider proposal on constitutional reform. I sincerely hope it is, because I think the extent of our problems with the fraying democracy and politics we have will require much more than a representative voting system to address. Party funding, second chambers, devolved settlements within the UK, local government, etc after etc after etc.
But a representative voting system would be a game changing precursor to our democratic renewal. It wouldn't just reflect current voting behaviours more fairly, but would utterly change them too. It would free ludicrous political coalitions like the Tory and Labour parties from the need to persist with their charades and pantomimes and allow voters to opt for the new parties that emerge which would much more accurately reflect their political views. No more agonising cloth pegs applied and least worst selections endured.
As for what governments emerge from a representative voting system, I'm much less exercised by all that. I've never approached the issue from the perspective of which existing party would benefit most, or what a wheeze it would be to lock the Tories out of overall power for ever more. It's just the right thing to do, and essential if we are to save our politics and restore faith in our democracy. The current system is broken and is the cause of so much of what is wrong with us as a country. Socially, economically and politically.
What disappoints me a little with Starmer's current position is that he is in a great position to move on this. He's miles ahead and looking on course to win under the existing system. He can't be accused by the Tory centric mainstream media of being a whining loser who wants to change the rules because he can't win under the current system. He's free of those standard attacks from the FPTP Preservation Society. What a position he's in right now to give Electoral and constitutional reform traction. I'm sad that he's declining to do so.
Still, I understand the tactical argument to avoid the issue before an election and I'm confident that once in power, Labour will be forced by internal party pressure, and voters, to finally confront the elephant in the room
Got to get there first under the existing rules. I get that. As Harold said (and I'm halfway through Nick Thomas-Symond's excellent biography of the Old Master), politics is the art of the possible. Always has been, always will be.
One step at a time, sweet Labour!!
|
|
|
Post by hireton on Jan 13, 2024 11:07:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 13, 2024 11:26:55 GMT
pjw1961 Like you, I've been on board the sizeable Electoral Reform bus within Labour for some time. I think its momentum, no pun intended, and direction of travel (apologies for lapsing into corpospeak) is unstoppable. It's inevitable in my view that the party, either in opposition, or more likely in government, will adopt it as policy. It may well be part of a much wider proposal on constitutional reform. I sincerely hope it is, because I think the extent of our problems with the fraying democracy and politics we have will require much more than a representative voting system to address. Party funding, second chambers, devolved settlements within the UK, local government, etc after etc after etc. But a representative voting system would be a game changing precursor to our democratic renewal. It wouldn't just reflect current voting behaviours more fairly, but would utterly change them too. It would free ludicrous political coalitions like the Tory and Labour parties from the need to persist with their charades and pantomimes and allow voters to opt for the new parties that emerge which would much more accurately reflect their political views. No more agonising cloth pegs applied and least worst selections endured. It might be a good idea to start by introducing electoral reform in the form of STV at local level in England as the Labour-Lib Dem government in Scotland did. I think that would disabuse politicians of the idea that voters cannot think beyond putting an X against a candidate's name. Assuming that we have a Labour Government in power for at least two terms, so the Tories cannot simply return to FPTP as they did for the Mayoral Elections, then PR at Westminster could be in the manifesto for a second term. While my preference is for STV, I recognise that a Westminster Parliament with a similar number of MP to that at present would require constituencies of around 400,000 electors, returning 5-6 MPs, for reasonable proportionality. Roy Jenkins' AV+ may be the best compromise, as long as the list component is made up from the losing candidates from each party who polled the highest percentage votes, rather than pre-selected party lists.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2024 12:01:48 GMT
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 13, 2024 12:19:14 GMT
pjw1961 Like you, I've been on board the sizeable Electoral Reform bus within Labour for some time. I think its momentum, no pun intended, and direction of travel (apologies for lapsing into corpospeak) is unstoppable. It's inevitable in my view that the party, either in opposition, or more likely in government, will adopt it as policy. It may well be part of a much wider proposal on constitutional reform. I sincerely hope it is, because I think the extent of our problems with the fraying democracy and politics we have will require much more than a representative voting system to address. Party funding, second chambers, devolved settlements within the UK, local government, etc after etc after etc. But a representative voting system would be a game changing precursor to our democratic renewal. It wouldn't just reflect current voting behaviours more fairly, but would utterly change them too. It would free ludicrous political coalitions like the Tory and Labour parties from the need to persist with their charades and pantomimes and allow voters to opt for the new parties that emerge which would much more accurately reflect their political views. No more agonising cloth pegs applied and least worst selections endured. It might be a good idea to start by introducing electoral reform in the form of STV at local level in England as the Labour-Lib Dem government in Scotland did. I think that would disabuse politicians of the idea that voters cannot think beyond putting an X against a candidate's name. Assuming that we have a Labour Government in power for at least two terms, so the Tories cannot simply return to FPTP as they did for the Mayoral Elections, then PR at Westminster could be in the manifesto for a second term. While my preference is for STV, I recognise that a Westminster Parliament with a similar number of MP to that at present would require constituencies of around 400,000 electors, returning 5-6 MPs, for reasonable proportionality. Roy Jenkins' AV+ may be the best compromise, as long as the list component is made up from the losing candidates from each party who polled the highest percentage votes, rather than pre-selected party lists. I hope crossbat11 is right but I'm not holding my breath. I think the argument that voters are too dim to understand anything but FPTP is a busted flush anyway. Quite apart from the three devolved nations, even in England there have been European, Mayoral and Police and Crime Commissioner elections fought under systems other than FPTP and the voters have coped just fine. The only arguments the fans of FPTP have left is (a) that it keeps extremist views out of parliament (the reverse take-over of the Tories by UKIP and Braverman as Home Secretary is the cure for believing that one) and (b) it produces 'strong government' - but it also produces bad government, as the last few years have amply demonstrated. Like you I favour STV and don't care about the big constituencies - at least you will have a good chance of being represented by one or more MPs sympathetic to your views. My current MP is entirely indifferent to mine and does not in any way represent me.
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jan 13, 2024 12:32:40 GMT
LL: "Roy Jenkins' AV+ may be the best compromise, as long as the list component is made up from the losing candidates from each party who polled the highest percentage votes, rather than pre-selected party lists."
I heartily agree.
For me, retaining the single member constituency is essential if voters are to be able to relate at all to 'their' MP.
The switch to very large, multi-member constituencies for Euro Parliament elections in the UK (for which the UK government chose the party list-based d'Hondt system in preference to STV or AV+) in my opinion undermined the understanding and perceived relevance of the EP to UK voters. Who had a clue what constituency they were in, or who their MEPs were? It reduced Euro elections to an esoteric exercise in fantasy politics, free of any apparent real consequences or relevance. An effect of the chosen system that may not have been totally unintended, of course.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 13, 2024 12:48:24 GMT
LL: "Roy Jenkins' AV+ may be the best compromise, as long as the list component is made up from the losing candidates from each party who polled the highest percentage votes, rather than pre-selected party lists."I heartily agree. For me, retaining the single member constituency is essential if voters are to be able to relate at all to 'their' MP. The switch to very large, multi-member constituencies for Euro Parliament elections in the UK (for which the UK government chose the party list-based d'Hondt system in preference to STV or AV+) in my opinion undermined the understanding and perceived relevance of the EP to UK voters. Who had a clue what constituency they were in, or who their MEPs were? It reduced Euro elections to an esoteric exercise in fantasy politics, free of any apparent real consequences or relevance. An effect of the chosen system that may not have been totally unintended, of course. The only way I "relate" to my constituency MP is by thinking he is a useless, largely absentee, waste of space who routinely ignores any contact I make with him. I would far rather live in a North Essex constituency electing (say) 3 Conservatives, 1 Reform, 1 Lib Dem (or Green) and 1 Labour. I would then feel I had representation at Westminster and an MP I could contact with a reasonable chance of getting a hearing.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,828
|
Post by Danny on Jan 13, 2024 13:16:02 GMT
Reeves watch ( cont) From interview with The Times today-before she flies off to Davos & chats with JP Morgan & Goldfilled Sacks.:- "Rachel Reeves has pledged that Labour will oversee a “revolution” in home ownership by opening the door to 25-year fixed-rate mortgages for millions of people." ( no state intervention-the sector to facilitate ) "Reeves indicated that Labour would support any cuts to income tax introduced by the government in the spring budget, as long as they were within her party’s fiscal rules." "She said that Labour would not support cuts to inheritance tax." "She suggested that Labour would not raise any taxes beyond those it has already announced: a crackdown on non-domiciled taxpayers who live in the UK, the closure of a private equity tax loophole and imposing VAT and business rates on private schools. “Those [three tax rises] are the tax increases that an incoming Labour government will introduce,” she said. “We don’t need other tax increases … Those are the things we will go into the election with.”" "Reeves explicitly ruled out any wealth taxes and any increase in income tax thresholds and capital gains tax. “It is important we encourage wealth creation and entrepreneurship,” she said." "She suggested that Labour was poised to scale back one of its flagship pledges, to invest £28 billion a year in green infrastructure. Labour would “have to do less” if Tory spending commitments meant there was less money to spend, she said. Reeves said that Labour’s pledge included £10 billion already committed by the government. “Nobody is talking, in the Labour side, about investing an additional £28 billion a year,” she said." "She insisted that Labour was confident it would still hit its target of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030, highlighting the importance of private investment and planning reform to make building renewable energy infrastructure easier." "Reeves suggested that she had no choice but to accept the assumption that public spending will rise by just 1 per cent overall from 2025, meaning significant cuts to unprotected departments. Asked if she would increase public spending, she said: “An incoming government doesn’t choose its inheritance. I have been really clear we are going to stick to our fiscal rules.”" After that lot, I'm not really clear what labour think they can actually change? 'More or Less' discussing possible funding for a future government noted the current administration has lived by increasing national debt for the last 14 years. Something becoming increasingly untenable but which they cling to. Is labour sticking with sailing toward national bankruptcy as per con, or intending to actually rein back on this? If so, what spending will be cut or taxes raises to make up the difference? And have they allowed for the billion in compensation to postmasters which is very unlikely to have been paid out before the next election, even were it to be delayed another ten years?
|
|
|
Post by somerjohn on Jan 13, 2024 13:19:06 GMT
pjw1961: "I would then feel I had representation at Westminster and an MP I could contact with a reasonable chance of getting a hearing."
That's part of what the + part of AV+ is for. You'd still have your single constituency MP, useless or not, but the top up to achieve proportionality would give you recourse to a Labour MP in your region elected that way.
And as LL said, that top-up list should be composed of each party's near-miss candidates in the region, ie those with the highest losing votes. Thus maintaining the importance of campaigning, rather than providing a route to Westminster for party stooges.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Jan 13, 2024 13:38:08 GMT
Sky poll tracker, average Labour lead of 19, similar to what it's been for the last year
|
|
|
Post by EmCat on Jan 13, 2024 13:46:38 GMT
LL: "Roy Jenkins' AV+ may be the best compromise, as long as the list component is made up from the losing candidates from each party who polled the highest percentage votes, rather than pre-selected party lists."I heartily agree. For me, retaining the single member constituency is essential if voters are to be able to relate at all to 'their' MP. The switch to very large, multi-member constituencies for Euro Parliament elections in the UK (for which the UK government chose the party list-based d'Hondt system in preference to STV or AV+) in my opinion undermined the understanding and perceived relevance of the EP to UK voters. Who had a clue what constituency they were in, or who their MEPs were? It reduced Euro elections to an esoteric exercise in fantasy politics, free of any apparent real consequences or relevance. An effect of the chosen system that may not have been totally unintended, of course. Most people cannot name their MP at the best of times www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22555659"Three quarters of people 'cannot name their local MP'" Hence, any advantage of a single member constituency is marginal at best. And if the MP is a Cabinet (or shadow cabinet) member, then they may be able to devote even less time to constituents. The Euro elections were always downplayed by elements of the media. Initially, it was the "it's happening in a far off land", and then latterly to be able to dismiss anything as irrelevant. It was only when UKIP started doing well that any attention was focused on them. Hence, for the majority of people who (unlike on this forum) don't "do" politics, the Euro elections were just another ho hum moment
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 13, 2024 14:14:43 GMT
pjw1961: "I would then feel I had representation at Westminster and an MP I could contact with a reasonable chance of getting a hearing."That's part of what the + part of AV+ is for. You'd still have your single constituency MP, useless or not, but the top up to achieve proportionality would give you recourse to a Labour MP in your region elected that way. And as LL said, that top-up list should be composed of each party's near-miss candidates in the region, ie those with the highest losing votes. Thus maintaining the importance of campaigning, rather than providing a route to Westminster for party stooges. I would settle for it as a second choice, but it should be noted that the 'party stooges' could still get themselves selected for (or imposed on) the stronger areas for that party and so become the next best placed runners up. Pure STV tends to actually pit the members of parties against each other, with the public getting to decide the ranking order through voting. Iconoclastic rebels have a track record of doing quite well in that scenario.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 13, 2024 14:49:20 GMT
Good wriggling, but the fact is that your statement "Once you relegate Labour to 3rd place, they can never recover," is entirely untrue as I have demonstrated and no amount of obfuscation about dates impacts that fact. Incidentally, those improvements in Labour fortunes almost nothing to do with tactical voting but rather moves from unpopular leaders and programmes to electable ones. As to FPTP and PR - I support the latter, and have done since I became aware of it in 1979. I have been a member of the Electoral Reform Society since 1990 and the Labour Campaign for Electoral Reform since 1997. The reason I joined Labour in the first place was Blair's promise to hold a referendum on electoral reform pre-1997 - a promise he broke, so that the Jenkins commission proposals sat on the shelf. In is untrue to say the Labour Party opposes PR, given that the Party conference has voted in favour. Even the Trade Unions have come round to the idea. The problem is with the Labour leadership and a majority of MPs. They remain wedded to the idea of periodically wielding the near absolute power that a Westminster majority yields you, at least in theory. I remain in favour of PR simply because it is right to fairly reflect votes. However, it should not be assumed the left would be in power very often as a result. The Lib/SDP Alliance would likely have preferred a moderate (i.e. non-Thatcher) Conservative Party in the 1980s over Labour, just as Clegg was happy to form a coalition with Cameron. The Lib Dems are not to be trusted in that respect. And in current times PR would produce a sizable far-right block of MPs (RefUK, etc - UKIP would have had about 80 seats in 2015), and the lesson from our continental neighbours seems to be that the main RoC party is generally happy to go into coalition with them. 1. I conceded the 3rd place point. But my question was really about tactical voting in light of lululemonmustdobetter s opposition and the fact it should be big in '24: Does tactical voting in the longer term harm the position of parties in constituencies whose supporters have tactically deserted them? You reply with 1983, which saw Labour pushed into 3rd place in so many seats, many of which were recovered. But what happened from '79 to '87 had little or nothing to do with Tactical voting, which is why 1983 is not a good base. I'm not obfuscating: I'm asking that yr evidence is relevant to the issue. It isn't. Let's look at the voting numbers in rounded millions. TORY LABOUR LIB THEN ALLIANCE 1979 13,7 11,5 4,3 1983 13,0 8.4 7,7 1987 13,7 10,0 7,3 So, Labour being pushed into 3rd placed was caused by: (a) Labour voters staying at home: not tactical, as in '19. (b) Near doubling of 3rd party vote. Who comprised this vote. (i) Liberals voting for 1st choice. (ii) Former Labour voters voting for 1st choice. (iii) Some Lab tactical voters in no-hope constituencies. (iv) Some Tory tactical voters. If we assume that (i) & (ii) were the major elements, then the degrading of Labour was the result of people choosing their preferred option: that's not tactical voting. In 1983 disillusioned Lab voters had a 1st choice other than staying at home - the Alliance. In 2019 they didnt, because the 3rd party was out of favour. In 1987, some Lab refuseniks came home. Alliance vote held up, as people, including former Labour voters, voted for what they wanted directly, not tactically, except in sml numbers 2. " The problem is with the Labour leadership and a majority of MPs. They remain wedded to the idea of periodically wielding the near absolute power that a Westminster majority yields you, at least in theory."
That was exactly my point! Labour governments in power have little interest in electoral reform. Starmer controls the party & if he wins he will be in a v powerful position. He seems as indifferent or hostile to PR as Blair was 25 years ago? What will happen in the election. There will be mention of reform in the manifesto but no commitment. Starmer etc in the campaign will strenuously play down reform: it's a distraction, gives hostage to fortune, etc. He's right. If he achieves power, the last thing he will want to do is to get bogged down in constitutionalism. (For one thing the voters have had a basin full with Brexit) The voters don't want him to! They don't care what the Lab conference thinks. leftieliberal says PR might feature in a 2nd term manifesto. What like Blair's! By then the lure of the rotational system may prove too much. Tho leftie is surely right that reform may have to be bottom-up. I agree that the outcome in terms of parties would be unpredictable & will involve right-wing alliances. Well the Tories seem to be getting along v well on their own under FPTP, & Labour pretty badly on their own! It's the divided opposition that is struggling. It will be v difficult for Reform to get 20% of the vote & for the Tories not to lose votes 3. crossbat11 "I think its momentum, no pun intended, and direction of travel (apologies for lapsing into corpospeak) is unstoppable. It's inevitable in my view that the party, either in opposition, or more likely in government, will adopt it as policy. It may well be part of a much wider proposal on constitutional reform." I don't think gradualism is a good explanation of historical events. And the irresistible forces might meet an immovable object, the Labour Leadership's opposition. The optimum moment was obviously under Blair:Brown. It would also need cross-party support. But the reforming parties could not even unite to oppose Tory Voter Suppression Bill v effectively, which it was in all their interests to oppose. 4. As ever, once a subject is raised posters revel to proceduralism. Is this system of reformed voting better than some other system. The real question is how do you get reform on the table: how do you overcome the Labour hierarchy's addiction to rotation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2024 14:57:36 GMT
You could cut out the second half of your post and it would still make sense...
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 13, 2024 15:13:20 GMT
pjw1961 ... But a representative voting system would be a game changing precursor to our democratic renewal. It wouldn't just reflect current voting behaviours more fairly, but would utterly change them too. It would free ludicrous political coalitions like the Tory and Labour parties from the need to persist with their charades and pantomimes and allow voters to opt for the new parties that emerge which would much more accurately reflect their political views. No more agonising cloth pegs applied and least worst selections endured. As for what governments emerge from a representative voting system, I'm much less exercised by all that. I've never approached the issue from the perspective of which existing party would benefit most, or what a wheeze it would be to lock the Tories out of overall power for ever more. It's just the right thing to do, and essential if we are to save our politics and restore faith in our democracy. The current system is broken and is the cause of so much of what is wrong with us as a country. Socially, economically and politically. ... The two worst GE results caused by FPTP that I remember were 1983 when the SDP got nearly as many votes as Labour and about 10% of their seats (23 v 209), and 2015 for UKIP when they got nearly 4m votes and 1 seat. It's always unfair though. In 2019 the Tories needed 38,000 votes per seat, Labour 50,000 and LibDem 336,000. I agree totally with the bit I've highlighted.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 13, 2024 15:36:50 GMT
pjw1961 Like you, I've been on board the sizeable Electoral Reform bus within Labour for some time. I think its momentum, no pun intended, and direction of travel (apologies for lapsing into corpospeak) is unstoppable. It's inevitable in my view that the party, either in opposition, or more likely in government, will adopt it as policy. It may well be part of a much wider proposal on constitutional reform. I sincerely hope it is, because I think the extent of our problems with the fraying democracy and politics we have will require much more than a representative voting system to address. Party funding, second chambers, devolved settlements within the UK, local government, etc after etc after etc. But a representative voting system would be a game changing precursor to our democratic renewal. It wouldn't just reflect current voting behaviours more fairly, but would utterly change them too. It would free ludicrous political coalitions like the Tory and Labour parties from the need to persist with their charades and pantomimes and allow voters to opt for the new parties that emerge which would much more accurately reflect their political views. No more agonising cloth pegs applied and least worst selections endured. As for what governments emerge from a representative voting system, I'm much less exercised by all that. I've never approached the issue from the perspective of which existing party would benefit most, or what a wheeze it would be to lock the Tories out of overall power for ever more. It's just the right thing to do, and essential if we are to save our politics and restore faith in our democracy. The current system is broken and is the cause of so much of what is wrong with us as a country. Socially, economically and politically. What disappoints me a little with Starmer's current position is that he is in a great position to move on this. He's miles ahead and looking on course to win under the existing system. He can't be accused by the Tory centric mainstream media of being a whining loser who wants to change the rules because he can't win under the current system. He's free of those standard attacks from the FPTP Preservation Society. What a position he's in right now to give Electoral and constitutional reform traction. I'm sad that he's declining to do so. Still, I understand the tactical argument to avoid the issue before an election and I'm confident that once in power, Labour will be forced by internal party pressure, and voters, to finally confront the elephant in the room Got to get there first under the existing rules. I get that. As Harold said (and I'm halfway through Nick Thomas-Symond's excellent biography of the Old Master), politics is the art of the possible. Always has been, always will be. One step at a time, sweet Labour!! Dunno what the matter with you is at the moment as I'm liking most of your posts- best get checked out with the GP I think. Can't be me as the GP has confirmed that Starmer is indeed living rent free in my head but that's a complex legal matter and nothing she can do about it as she has the same issue :-) The one thing I disagree with is the likelihood of Starmer being amenable. This is not part of my usual Starmer criticisms- I just think human nature is such that's it's going to take a "hero" to be able to see beyond the immediate and as robbiealive says this is a tightly controlled party being created in his image with a likely large majority to play with that they don't want to see risked. Only a hung parliament (not even the threat of one) is going to achieve this and that's what we saw in 2010 but where the dominant partner in that alliance was able to manipulate a miserable compromise and the minor partner in that arrangement was relatively happy with the call as the only, at the time, likely beneficiaries were likely to be LD (again no huge criticism of Clegg intended- again human nature). Times have changed a bit and beneficiaries of AV in England, including RefUK, Greens and LD, are more dispersed now but some version of pure PR is still the best and right option in my opinion. There is a small danger that someone will emerge like our Tommy that becomes a real threat, capitalising on the deprived/will not vote demographic in some desperate future timeline, but, as you have said, that small risk cannot deter from doing the right thing and cutting through the apathy and malaise that has entered our politics. As you say, though less of immediate concern, is a new constitution that balances powers in a different way. The monarchy is largely irrelevant but the House of Lords is a random body, controlled by House of Commons and PMs anyway and the ability to scrutinise government decisions is largely moribound. Every enquiry is 10 years out of the date by the time we get anywhere meaningful- Hillsborough, Blood scandals, Post Office, Covid, Grenfell etc etc.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 13, 2024 15:44:20 GMT
It's worth noting that the proposals for the Welsh Senedd, as it moves to 90 Senedd Members, is to pair up the 30 Westminster seats into 15 super seats and elect 6 members from each.
It will mean an end to the current top up system.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 16:04:16 GMT
shevii
You're worried about liking my posts?
What the hell do you think I am??
🤔🤣
|
|
|
Post by Mark on Jan 13, 2024 16:14:13 GMT
*** ADMIN ***
Another spammer, Azkyta, we've had a few recently, tried and got unceremoneously booted.
Once again, thank you to those of you who flagged it up to me.
|
|
|
Post by lefthanging on Jan 13, 2024 16:25:19 GMT
You could cut out the second half of your post and it would still make sense... For some posters the only way to make their posts make sense is to cut out the first half of their posts as well the second.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,399
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 13, 2024 16:34:28 GMT
robbiealive - the short answer to your long post is that the only way we are going to get PR is to have a minority Labour government dependent on the support of smaller, pro-PR parties who demand electoral reform as the price of their support. Unfortunately under FPTP there is no way to vote for that outcome, it can only happen by accident. 2029 perhaps?
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2024 16:43:45 GMT
Azkyta Missed them
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Jan 13, 2024 16:52:10 GMT
Betting odds for the two upcoming by-elections
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 13, 2024 17:12:10 GMT
robbiealive - the short answer to your long post is that the only way we are going to get PR is to have a minority Labour government dependent on the support of smaller, pro-PR parties who demand electoral reform as the price of their support. Unfortunately under FPTP there is no way to vote for that outcome, it can only happen by accident. 2029 perhaps? I doubt very much that PR would gain support at a Referendum - regardless of what polls might say now.Once the complexity of PR became apparent in the course of such a campaign, people would turn away. AV - which I support - was a far simpler concept than PR , yet was heavily defeated. The electorate would be reminded of the paralysis of Hung Parliaments - most recently 2017 - 2019 - and the prospect of that being a permanent ongoing feature of our system would be unlikely to appeal.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
|
Post by steve on Jan 13, 2024 18:07:34 GMT
Those interested in space flight will no doubt have viewed the take off of the first private launch of a NASA moon lander, sadly while the launch was successful a propellant leak meant the mission looked to be a failure. Astrobotic the company behind the venture have however done remarkable work to keep the vehicle viable and it now looks that a moon mission might be possible.Plans for a larger lander have been made for Q4 with the years delay of Artemis III until 2026 it would be excellent news of these relatively inexpensive missions can be made to work as it has great potential for lunar exploration. youtu.be/c0EtEXnwNqM?si=M7x89r3EWZiJi1z4
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 13, 2024 19:51:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 13, 2024 20:26:57 GMT
Just to update the comments I have made several times regarding the possibility of a Tory recovery from its polling woes,in mid September 1969 - just over nine months prior to the GE held on 18th June 1970 - the Tories enjoyed a polling lead over Labour in the range of 9.5% - 19.6%. This was ,however, about to fall back well into single figures for a few weeks in late September and October that year. Whilst the Tories went on to win a shock victory in June 1970 by 2.4% over Labour in GB terms, we now appear to be reaching a point where Labour's continued polling advantage is rather greater than that still enjoyed by the Tories in late 1969.
|
|